identifier stringlengths 1 43 | dataset stringclasses 3
values | question stringclasses 4
values | rank int64 0 99 | url stringlengths 14 1.88k | read_more_link stringclasses 1
value | language stringclasses 1
value | title stringlengths 0 200 | top_image stringlengths 0 125k | meta_img stringlengths 0 125k | images listlengths 0 18.2k | movies listlengths 0 484 | keywords listlengths 0 0 | meta_keywords listlengths 1 48.5k | tags null | authors listlengths 0 10 | publish_date stringlengths 19 32 ⌀ | summary stringclasses 1
value | meta_description stringlengths 0 258k | meta_lang stringclasses 68
values | meta_favicon stringlengths 0 20.2k | meta_site_name stringlengths 0 641 | canonical_link stringlengths 9 1.88k ⌀ | text stringlengths 0 100k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 88 | https://www.cheapcharts.info/us/itunes/movies/447852615/Citizen-Kane | en | All iTunes Movie Deals - Your price tracker for iTunes, Amazon and Vudu | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Save up to 80% on iTunes movie deals and other offers for all digital products like movies, music, TV shows, books, audiobooks and apps. CheapCharts is the ultimate deal platform and price tracker for iTunes and Vudu Stores. | en | ./favicon.ico | https://www.cheapcharts.info | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 65 | https://epdf.pub/the-secret-history-of-star-wars.html | en | The Secret History of Star Wars | [
"https://epdf.tips/assets/img/epdf_logo.png",
"https://epdf.tips/img/300x300/the-secret-history-of-star-wars_5ada9204b7d7bc2d03387f71.jpg",
"https://epdf.tips/img/300x300/death-star-star-wars_5ad7f019b7d7bc6d3fddb722.jpg",
"https://epdf.tips/img/300x300/star-wars-star-by-star_5ea7c719097c47d2248b5ce6.jpg",
... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Guest"
] | null | 156 illustrations, 15 in colour For my familySpace is at a premium in a concise volume of this kind and, much as I ... | en | epdf.tips | https://epdf.tips/the-secret-history-of-star-wars.html | 156 illustrations, 15 in colour
For my family
Space is at a premium in a concise volume of this kind and, much as I w o u l d have liked to have included the original titles of films not in the English language with their translations or trade names, I have elected to refer to productions solely by the title by w h i c h they are best k n o w n in English. T h e date given in each case is that of a film's release in its country of origin. W h e r e sources conflict, I have opted for the majority decision. I am extremely grateful to all at Thames and Hudson for their assistance and unfailing encouragement, and w o u l d like particularly to thank Jason Freeman for his invaluable advice on the style and content of this book and all w h o tolerated me while I completed it.
Any copy of this book issued by the publisher as a paperback is sold subject to the condition that it shall not by way of trade or otherwise be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including these words being imposed on a subsequent purchaser. First published in the United Kingdom in 1 9 9 5 by Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1 8 1 A High Holborn, London W C 1 V 7 Q X www.thamesandhudson.com © 1 9 9 5 David Parkinson Reprinted 2 0 0 2 All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN O - 5 O O - 2 0 2 7 7 - X
Printed and bound in Italy by Conti Tipocolor
Contents
CHAPTER O N E
CHAPTER
T W O
From S c i e n c e t o C i n e m a T h e F o u n d a t i o n s of C l a s s i c a l Hollywood
CHAPTER THREE
7
23
Film Art 1 9 0 8 - 3 0
51 83
CHAPTER
POUR
T h e G o l d e n A g e of H o l l y w o o d 1 9 2 7 - 4 1
CHAPTER
FIVE
T h e E m e r g e n c e of National C i n e m a s 1930-45
121
CHAPTER
six
F a c i n g Realities 1 9 4 6 - 5 9
150
CHAPTER
SEVEN
N e w Inspirations 1 9 5 9 - 7 0
185
CHAPTER EIGHT
World C i n e m a s i n c e 1 9 7 0
218
EPILOGUE
For Future P r e s e n t a t i o n . . .
253
SELECT B I B L I O G R A P H Y
255
ILLUSTRATION
255
CREDITS
G L O S S A R Y
256
FILM INDEX
257
GENERAL
261
INDEX
i Otloimr Anschulz's Llectio-Tailn tope (jShy) exploited persistinic of vision to give tht inipics sion of moving pictures as transparencies of sequence photographs passed before brief flashes of light. Anschiitz later produced a dual-lens disc projector, premiered in Berlin in November 1894.
CHAPTER
ONE
From Science to Cinema T h e most m o d e r n of all the arts, cinema is fittingly the most dependent o n science and t e c h n o l o g y . T h e twentieth century's d o m inant art f o r m was b o r n o u t of the nineteenth-century predilection for machinery, m o v e m e n t , optical illusion and public entertainment. Film's prehistory is a labyrinth of discoveries, inventions, part-solutions and failures. S o m e w e r e accidental, others coincidental, but f e w w e r e devised w i t h the e n d p r o d u c t o f projected m o v i n g photographic images in m i n d . It was an evolutionary process in w h i c h each n e w device or discovery inspired a fresh w a v e of emulation and e x p e r i mentation, sometimes for the purpose of entertainment, but often in the cause of science alone. T h e majority of its pioneers always envisaged the m o v i n g picture as primarily a scientific aid, i n d e e d e v e n Louis L u m i e r e claimed that ' m y w o r k has b e e n directed towards scientific research. I have n e v e r engaged in w h a t is termed " p r o d u c t i o n " ' . H o w e v e r , the k e y scientific principle o n w h i c h m a n y o f these inventions was based was a false assumption. Persistence of vision had b e e n k n o w n to the ancient Egyptians, but in spite of the w o r k of Isaac N e w t o n and the C h e v a l i e r d ' A r c y , it was not until 1824 that it was satisfactorily defined, by Peter M a r k R o g e t , as the ability of the retina to retain an image of an object for Ao to A of a second after its r e m o v a l from the field of vision. H o w e v e r , it has since b e e n s h o w n that film seems to m o v e because the brain, and n o t the e y e , is accepting stimuli w h i c h it is incapable of p e r c e i v i n g as separate. T h e brain has a p e r c e p tion threshold, b e l o w w h i c h images exposed to it w i l l appear as continuous and film's speed of 24 frames per second is b e l o w that threshold. Persistence of vision or flicker fusion prevents us from seeing the lines b e t w e e n each frame, w h i l e the phi p h e n o m e n o n or stroboscopic effect, analysed b e t w e e n 1 9 1 2 and 1 9 1 6 by the p s y c h o logists M a x W e r t h e i m e r and H u g o Miinsterberg, provides a mental bridge b e t w e e n the frames to permit us to see a series of static images as a single continuous m o v e m e n t . C i n e m a is, therefore, the first art f o r m to rely solely on psycho-perceptual illusions generated by machine. l
l
7
R o g e t ' s conclusions m a y h a v e b e e n inaccurate, but they still fostered the i n v e n t i o n of a n u m b e r of animating devices critical to the d e v e l o p m e n t of the m o t i o n picture. Despite its name, the first of these 'optical toys', the T h a u m a t r o p e (from the G r e e k for ' w o n d e r turning') was also the simplest. Based on Sir J o h n Herschel's spinning-coin principle, it was a cardboard disc w h i c h m e r g e d the pictures on each face into a single i m a g e w h e n spun on a piece of thread. A n o t h e r R o g e t observation, that a rolling w h e e l appeared stationary w h e n v i e w e d intermittently t h r o u g h vertical railings, gave rise to three similar toys p r o d u c e d independently in the early 1830s: M i c h a e l Faraday's W h e e l 1
2
of Life (1831), the B e l g i a n Joseph Plateau's Phenakistoscope and the Austrian S i m o n R i t t e r v o n Stampfer's Stroboscope (both 1832). T h e Phenakistoscope was a serrated disc w i t h series drawings about its outer e d g e w h i c h gave the impression o f m o v e m e n t w h e n rotated and v i e w e d t h r o u g h its teeth in a mirror. V o n Stampfer's d e v i c e c o m prised t w o discs, o n e slotted and the other bearing the drawings. W h e n v i e w e d t h r o u g h the slots the rotating drawings appeared to portray a continuous action, thus estabhshing the principle on w h i c h the m o d e r n shutter is based. G e o r g e H o m e r ' s D a e d a l u m , i n v e n t e d in 1834, replaced the discs w i t h a strip w h i c h g a v e an identical impression w h e n placed around the w a l l o f a spinning slotted drum. B y the time the d e v i c e was marketed as the Z o e t r o p e in the 1860s, an Austrian, B a r o n Franz v o n U c h a t i u s , had projected Phenakistoscope images o n t o a screen using a m a g i c lantern. S o m e historians trace the origins of light-projected images b a c k to the C a v e o f S h a d o w s described i n B o o k V I I o f Plato's Republic o r the s h a d o w puppets of C h i n a , India and Java. H o w e v e r , s h a d o w shows did n o t enjoy widespread popularity in E u r o p e until the E n l i g h t e n m e n t w h e n , amongst others, A m b r o i s e (or A m b r o g i o ) delighted 1770s L o n d o n and G o e t h e f o u n d e d a s h a d o w theatre at Trefurt in G e r m a n y a f e w years later. S u c h exhibitions appealed to tlie rational temper of the age, although they c o n t i n u e d to attract audiences t h r o u g h o u t the nineteenth century. T h e most notable s h a d o w s h o w of all, established by D o m i n i q u e Seraphin in Paris in 1784, prospered until 1870, and H e n r i R i v i e r e ' s s h a d o w melodramas at the C h a t N o i r , w h i c h b e g a n as late as 1887, remained popular e v e n after the first cinema shows. T h e y w e r e s o o n surpassed by a m o r e impressive spectacle. T h i s was the E i d o p h u s i k o n , a theatre of effects devised by the Alsatian painter and theatrical designer Philippe-Jacques de L o u t h e r b o u r g in the 1780s, in w h i c h dozens of miniature scenes w e r e 8
2 A Javanese shadow knight. The wayang kulit ('shadow plays') have been performed for over looo years and are still enormously popular, with the dalang ('puppeteers') as celebrated as film stars.
animated b y ingenious variations o f light and shade. R o b e r t B a r k e r o f E d i n b u r g h harnessed this technique in 1787 and applied it to the paintings of epic content and p r o p o r t i o n typical of such realist artists as B e n j a m i n W e s t and R o b e r t K e r Porter. Barker's Panorama w a s sited in a giant cylinder w h i c h surrounded the audience. Its successor, the D i o r a m a , p i o n e e r e d b y the F r e n c h m e n C l a u d e - M a r i e B o u t o n and Louis Jacques M a n d e D a g u e r r e in 1822, was e v e n m o r e elaborate. H e r e the audience sat on a dais w h i c h r e v o l v e d as the canvas was illuminated by a battery of lanterns and shutters. J o h n Constable recorded his impressions of the R e g e n t ' s Park D i o r a m a in 1823: 'It is in part a transparency. T h e spectator is in a dark chamber, and it is v e r y pleasing and has great illusion. [Yet] it is w i t h o u t the pale of art, because the object is deception. A r t pleases by reminding, n o t d e c e i v i n g . ' E v e n m o r e popular was the magic lantern. Its basic elements w e r e 9
II
5 Emile Reynaud's 'Pantomimes Lumineuses' played at his Theatre Optique from 1892 to 1900. Each animated narrative lasted approximately 15 minutes, required some 700 fullcolour drawings and was accompanied by specially composed music.
described by the G e r m a n Jesuit Athanasius K i r c h e r in Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae in 1646 (revised 1 6 7 1 ) , and probably integrated into a single device by the D u t c h scientist Christiaan H u y g e n s a decade later. T h e 'lanthorn' display Samuel Pepys witnessed in 1666 was probably quite primitive, as candle-light only dimly illuminated the opaque colours of the coarse glass slides. W. J. Gravesande (1721) and A m i A r g a n d (1780) d e v e l o p e d oil lamps, w h i c h w e r e , in turn, superseded by lime light jet-lamps, w h o s e sharper images c o u l d be g i v e n depth and sequence by the use of multiple lanterns or lenses. T h i s technique was e m p l o y e d to supernatural effect in the 1790s by the B e l g i a n s h o w m a n Etienne Gaspard R o b e r t ( k n o w n as ' R o b e r t s o n ' ) , w h o s e Fantasmagorie derived additional atmosphere from the s m o k e swirling around its G o t h i c setting. N i e m i e c Philipstahl b r o u g h t the s h o w to L o n d o n , w h e r e o n e o f his disciples, H e n r y L a n g d o n C h i l d e , d e m o n strated the first 'Dissolving V i e w s ' at the turn of the century. M o v e m e n t w i t h i n an i m a g e was m a d e possible by mechanical slides, envisaged by Pieter v a n M u s s c h e n b r o e c k as early as 1 7 3 9 . T h e C h r o m a t r o p e , E i d o t r o p e and C y c l o i d o t r o p e all relied on gears, rotary 11
3
4
5
discs and slipping glass for their effects, w h i l e the C h o r e u t o s c o p e , patented by the L o n d o n optician L. S. B e a l e , was the first projection d e v i c e to use intermittent m o v e m e n t . T o w e r i n g a b o v e all other lanternists was the F r e n c h m a n E m i l e R e y n a u d ( 1 8 4 4 - 1 9 1 8 ) . His Praxinoscope (1876) replaced the slots of the Z o e t r o p e w i t h a p o l y g o n a l d r u m of mirrors placed at its centre, w h i c h reflected the rotating drawings to give bright, sharp m o v i n g images. By using l o n g e r transparent strips and a projecting lens, R e y n a u d p r o d u c e d the 'Praxinoscope a Projections' w i t h w h i c h , from 1892, he presented 'Pantomimes Lumineuses' at his Theatre O p t i q u e . T h e s e charming animations played to p a c k e d houses and b r o u g h t the cinema to the verge of existence. It was R e y n a u d ' s great tragedy that the successful projection of m o v i n g photographs was just three years away. T h e history o f p h o t o g r a p h y embraces the writings o f Aristotle, the A r a b mathematician A l H a z e n and L e o n a r d o d a V i n c i , w h o s e theory of a camera obscura was put into practice in the mid-sixteenth century by another Italian, Giambattista della Porta. For some t w o centuries artists used the camera obscura and its derivatives as a sketching aid, w h i l e scientists including T h o m a s W e d g w o o d , J. H. Schultz, Sir J o h n Herschel and B l a n q u e t Evrard c o n d u c t e d the search for the chemical or mechanical means of fixing its image. Still p h o t o g r a p h y b e c a m e a reality thanks to Joseph N i c e p h o r e N i e p c e and Louis D a g u e r r e , w h o displayed the daguerreotype in Paris in 1839, six years after his partner's death. In the 1840s the Englishman W i l l i a m F o x Talbot discovered h o w to p r o d u c e photographic images on paper and a 12
6 Sequence photographs of a running cat taken by Eadweard Muybridge. In 1879 he began projecting moving images from similar pictures with his Zoogyroscope, renamed the Zoopraxiscope in 1881. 7 Etienne-Jules Marey demonstrating his fusil photographique (1882). Nicknamed 'the Birdman of Beaune', Marey developed his sequence technique to record birds in flight. He adapted the gun to paper strips in 1888 and perforated celluloid in 1889.
negative—positive process that enabled the d e v e l o p m e n t of his C a l o t y p e s (later Talbotypes). His patent for transparencies was purchased b y the L a n g e n h e i m brothers o f Philadelphia, w h o introduced positive images on glass plates in 1849, thus p a v i n g the w a y for the projection o f photographs. Plateau had suggested the u n i o n of the p h o t o g r a p h and the Phenakistoscope i n 1849, but w h i l e H e n r y d u M o n t ' s O m n i s c o p e (1859) and H e n r y R . H e y l ' s Phasmatrope (1870) simulated m o v e ment, their stiffly posed photographs only highlighted the n e e d for a m e t h o d of r e c o r d i n g action spontaneously and simultaneously as it occurred. Series p h o t o g r a p h y was t o b e advanced b y the w o r k o f t w o v e r y different characters, the English eccentric E a d w e a r d M u y b r i d g e and the French scientist Etienne-Jules M a r e y , w h o b o t h lived b e t w e e n 1830 and 1904. An itinerant photographer, M u y b r i d g e was hired in 1872 by G o v e r i i o r Leland Stanford of California to determine w h e t h e r at some stage a galloping horse had all four h o o v e s o f f the g r o u n d at o n c e . T h e 13
7 6
$25,000 bet that p r o m p t e d the c o m m i s s i o n m a y w e l l have b e e n a p o c ryphal, but M u y b r i d g e was successful in p r o v i n g the p o i n t in 1878 w h e n faster exposure times enabled h i m to perfect his apparatus, a battery of t w e l v e cameras triggered by c o n n e c t i n g trip wires along the straight of the Palo A l t o racetrack. In 1879 he u n v e i l e d the Z o o p r a x i s c o p e , a derivative of Uchatius's Projecting Phenakistoscope, w h i c h cast o n t o a screen the drawings m a d e of his photographs by Meissonier. M u y b r i d g e later utilized as m a n y as t w e n t y - f o u r cameras to film various species and published his results in 1888 in the e l e v e n v o l u m e Studies in Animal Locomotion. 7
M a r e y was also primarily c o n c e r n e d w i t h the mechanics o f m o v e ment. In 1882, he adapted the photographic r e v o l v e r w i t h w h i c h his colleague Pierre-Jules-Cesar Janssen had attempted to record the passage of V e n u s across the face of the sun in 1874. T h e fusil photographique used a r e v o l v i n g plate to record a d o z e n instantaneous p i c tures in the course of o n e second. After experimenting w i t h multiple superimpositions on a single plate, M a r e y turned first to the paper and then the celluloid roll film marketed by the Eastman K o d a k c o m p a n y to p r o d u c e continuous strips of images called chronophotographes. T h e film's regular, intermittent passage was m a d e possible by the Maltese
9 The Rice/Irwin Kiss (1896). Shot for the Kinetoscope, this kiss between the Broadway stars John Rice and May Irwin provoked outrage when it was projected onto a large screen.
cross m e c h a n i s m devised by the G e r m a n O s k a r Messter, w h i c h is still a k e y c o m p o n e n t o f m u c h m o d e r n m o v i e equipment. A l t h o u g h M a r e y did not intend to exploit his findings commercially, in 1893 he and his assistant G e o r g e s D e m e n y d i d j o i n , w i t h o u t success, in the race to p r o d u c e a machine capable of projecting m o v i n g photographs. T h e f i r s t ' m o v i e s ' w e r e not intended t o b e projected o r silent. T h e y w e r e sponsored b y T h o m a s A l v a E d i s o n (1847—1931), w h o instructed, the head o f his W e s t O r a n g e laboratory, W i l l i a m K e n n e d y Laurie D i c k s o n (i860—1935), to c o p y the design of the P h o n o g r a p h . H o w e v e r , photographs etched o n t o metal cylinders p r o v e d u n w o r k able and so D i c k s o n , w h o s e genius is t o o often o v e r l o o k e d , adapted elements from every stage of the e v o l u t i o n of the m o v i n g image to p r o d u c e in 1890 a camera called the K i n e t o g r a p h and, the f o l l o w i n g year, a v i e w e r n a m e d the K i n e t o s c o p e . E x h i b i t i n g action shot in the w o r l d ' s first film studio, the B l a c k Maria, R a f f and G a m m o n ' s K i n e t o s c o p e parlours o p e n e d in 1894 and w e r e s o o n popular t h r o u g h o u t A m e r i c a . Items such as Fred Ott's Sneeze, the Rice-Irwin Kiss and the host of vaudeville acts and b o x i n g bouts w e r e , in effect, little m o r e than unedited lengths of footage, no l o n g e r than the action itself or the particular strip of celluloid. Carelessly neglecting to take o u t overseas patents, Edison completely dismissed the potential of projection and concentrated on exploiting the p e e p s h o w , w h i c h he b e l i e v e d w o u l d be just another fad in a n o v e l t y - h u n g r y age. His avaricious misjudgment w o u l d ultimately cost h i m dear. 15
8 9
io A poster advertising the Lumieres' Cinematographe (1896). The film is L'Arroseur anvse, in which a mischievous boy steps off a hosepipe when the gardener examines the nozzle to see why the water has stopped.
T h e age of inventions culminated in the e v e n t that traditionally signals the birth of the cinema - the first demonstration to a p a y i n g audience of the L u m i e r e s ' C i n e m a t o g r a p h e in the Salon Indien, a basement r o o m of the Grand C a f e in Paris, on 28 D e c e m b e r 1895. In essence, A u g u s t e (1862-1954) and Louis (1864-1948) simply w o n the race to find a w o r k a b l e m e t h o d of c o m b i n i n g the K i n e t o s c o p e w i t h the magic lantern. M a n y contemporaries had c o m p e t e d : the F r e n c h b o r n Louis A i m e A u g u s t i n L e Prince, w h o shot and projected street scenes of Leeds in 1888, but w h o mysteriously vanished before he c o u l d c o m p l e t e his w o r k ; W i l l i a m Friese-Greene, freely adapting from his fellow E n g l i s h m e n J o h n R u d g e and Frederick Varley, w h o s e apparatus probably w o r k e d efficiently o n l y in the 1 9 5 1 British ' b i o p i c ' The Magic Box; the L o n d o n barrister W o r d s w o r t h D o n i s t h o r p e , w h o s e Kinesigraph experiments w e r e c o n f o u n d e d by lack of funds; the G e r m a n brothers M a x and E m i l Skladanowsky, inventors o f the B i o s c o p e , and the F r e n c h m a n H e n r y Joly, w h o p r o d u c e d the P h o t o z o o t r o p e . Across the Atlantic, the pioneers included M a j o r 16
W o o d v i l l e Latham and his sons G r a y and O t w a y , w h o s e P a n o p t i k o n (or Eidoloscope) introduced the 'Latham l o o p ' , w h i c h prevented the perforated celluloid strip from snapping as it passed before the lens (thus later permitting the p r o d u c t i o n of feature films), and T h o m a s A r m a t and C . Francis Jenkins, w h o s e Phantoscope w o u l d b e a c c u mulated by Edison, renamed the Vitascope, and exhibited at K o s t e r & Bial's M u s i c Hall, N e w Y o r k , i n 1896. T h e Lumieres, the Lathams, the Skladanowskys, A r m a t and Jenkins, J e a n - A i m e L e R o y , E u g e n e Lauste and H e r m a n Casler had all g i v e n public demonstrations of their projectors before 28 D e c e m b e r 1895, but it is this date that historians hold sacred. T h e Lumieres merit e l e v a tion a b o v e their peers. T h e i r portable, hand-cranked cameras (invented by L o u i s in a single night w h e n unable to sleep), capable of shooting, printing and projecting m o v i n g pictures, w e r e s o o n filming around the w o r l d to p r o d u c e a catalogue of general, military, c o m i c and scenic v i e w s , as w e l l as l i v i n g portraits. T h e limitations of D i c k s o n ' s s t u d i o - b o u n d shorts w e r e s o o n e x p o s e d alongside the L u m i e r e s ' m o r e spontaneous 15—20 second slices of life. R e f l e c t i n g the c o m p o s e d l o o k of c o n t e m p o r a r y p h o t o g r a p h y rather than the theatrical tableau, their 'pictures in m o t i o n ' had a depth of scene that contributed to the realism of the train pulling into the Gare de la C i o t a t and a basic narrative pattern of b e g i n n i n g , middle and end that informed e v e n the Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory. T h e naturalism and bustle of m a n y of their actualities (actuality films) foreshadowed the style of the S o v i e t K i n o - E y e and the Italian N e o - R e a l i s t s , w h i l e Feeding Baby has a distinct h o m e - m o v i e feel. A l s o on the L u m i e r e s ' o p e n i n g bill was L'Arroseur arrose, the first screen g a g and the earliest narrative film. C o n s i d e r i n g the length of its 11 The Mottershaws (c. 1902), a Sheffield travelling family who showed their films like Daring Daylight Burglary (1903) at fairs and carnivals. Other itinerants included James Bamforth {A Kiss in the Tunnel, 1900) and William Haggar (The Life of Charles Peace, 1905).
10
prehistory and the comparative spans required by the n o v e l and the other arts, the speed w i t h w h i c h the cinema d e v e l o p e d its c o m p l e x c o d e of instantly recognizable narrative symbols and its o w n grammar and poetics is all the m o r e remarkable. Y e t few w e r e w i l l i n g to c o n c e d e that film, w i t h its roots in pulp fiction, c o m i c strips, popular p h o t o g r a p h y and melodrama, was an art, dismissing it as a fairground attraction or a magician's prop. Ironically, it was a French illusionist, G e o r g e M e l i e s (1861—1938), considered by m a n y 'the father of the narrative film', w h o was to b e c o m e the screen's first true artist. B e t w e e n 1896 and 1906, his Star Film c o m p a n y made in excess of 500 films, of w h i c h less than 140 survive. Producer, director, writer, designer, cameraman and actor, Melies is attributed w i t h the first use of dissolves, superimposition, time-lapse photography, art direction and artificial lighting effects. His range of subject was equally impressive: trick shorts (or feeries), such as L'Homme a la tete de caoutchouc (1901), fantasies {Cinderella, 1899), historical reconstructions (Benvenuto Cellini, 1904), docudramas (The Dreyfus Affair, 1899), and science fiction adventures, the most famous b e i n g the thirty-scene A Trip to the Moon (1902). Melies b r o k e from the photographic impulses o f the primitives t o s h o w that the m o v i e camera c o u l d he. H e r e c o g nized the difference b e t w e e n screen and real time and c o n c e i v e d a b e w i l d e r i n g array of optical effects to expand the parameters of the fictional film story. C h a p l i n called h i m 'the alchemist o f light' and D . W . Griffith claimed 'I o w e h i m everything', y e t his camera was always a spectator w i t h a f r o n t - r o w v i e w of a tableau vivant, c o m p l e t e w i t h stage entrances and scenery that prevented action in depth. S o m e accused h i m of p r o d u c i n g kitsch, others o f ' g e n t e e l p o r n o g r a p h y ' , but Melies's c h i e f failing was a paucity of imagination w h i c h p r e v e n t e d h i m from exploiting fully the cinematic techniques he had devised. By the time Pathe Freres b o u g h t out M e l i e s in 1 9 1 1 , they w e r e the major force in production, distribution and exhibition w o r l d w i d e . In France, only G a u m o n t c o u l d c o m p e t e , largely o w i n g to the talents of A l i c e G u y - B l a c h e (the first w o m a n director and responsible for m o r e than three hundred shorts b e t w e e n 1897 and 1906), V i c t o r i n Jasset (the creator of the crime serial) and the prolific Louis Feuillade, w h o in the t w e n t y years from 1906 directed m o r e than 800 films, scripted some 100 m o r e and collaborated on countless others. H o w e v e r , Charles Pathe, d u b b e d 'the N a p o l e o n o f the screen', c o u l d c o u n t o n the services of the dapper M a x Linder, star of m o r e than 400 c o m edies, and the p r o d u c t i o n c h i e f Ferdinand Z e c c a ( 1 8 6 4 - 1 9 4 7 ) , w h o skilfully plagiarized e v e r y n e w theme and style. 18
12 Georges Melies, A Trip to the Moon (1902). The rocket fired from a cannon on earth lands in the moon's eye. This action was repeated in the next shot taken from the lunar surface on which the Astronomic Club disembarks.
Y e t not e v e n Z e c c a c o u l d reproduce the e x c i t e m e n t generated b y the films o f E d w i n S. Porter (1870—1941). D u r i n g his time as an Edison projectionist, Porter had b e g u n to appreciate that the syntactic unit of the narrative film was not the scene but the shot. T h e version of Tlie Life of an American Fireman o w n e d by the N e w Y o r k M u s e u m of M o d e r n A r t suggests that he had acted on his theory as early as 1902. H o w e v e r , the c o p y r i g h t print, held at the Library of Congress, reveals that the film's dramatic rescue was originally s h o w n first from the point o f v i e w o f the trapped w o m a n and then from that o f the fireman and not as parallel actions. Nevertheless, the film remains significant for a n u m b e r of genuine innovations, including the depiction of o n screen t h o u g h t and the use of d o c u m e n t a r y footage for a fictional purpose, w h i l e the techniques o f ' c r o s s - c u t t i n g ' and 'creative g e o g r a p h y ' taught audiences h o w to m a k e mental associations b e t w e e n events w i t h o u t the benefit of a rigid chronology. Porter did incorporate parallel cutting into his next film, an e m b r y onic Western, The Great Train Robbery, in 1903. T h e action b e g a n by f o l l o w i n g traditional editing conventions, but Porter soon started 19
cross-cutting for r h y t h m and pace, overlapping shots to increase tension. T h e diagonal m o v e m e n t of the characters across the screen, in-camera 'matting' to g i v e the impression of the passing scene, the depth of framing to c o n v e y privileged information to the audience, and the use of 'pans' and 'tilts' to f o l l o w the action all added to the fluidity and intensity of the narrative. Regrettably, there was no intercutting w i t h i n scenes, the interiors (in stark contrast to the realism of the exteriors) w e r e w o e f u l l y synthetic and the acting highly theatrical; still, The Great Train Robbery established the basic principles of continuity editing and did m u c h to w i d e n the v o c a b u l a r y of film's universal language. Porter's r e v o l u t i o n gave c i n e m a a n e w spatial and temporal freedom, but like Melies he was unable to keep pace w i t h public demand and retired in 1 9 1 5 . A l t h o u g h he had included an extreme close-up of the ringing alarm in The Life of an American Fireman, Porter had filmed The Great Train Robbery exclusively in l o n g or m e d i u m shot, apart from its s h o c k
13 Edwin S. Porter, The Great Train Robbery (1903), lasting some 12 minutes, consisted of 14 individual shots. The last was completely non-diegetic and depicted the sheriff shooting direcdy at the audience.
20
14 Cecil Hepworth, Rescued by Rover (1905): an example of consistent direction of movement within the frame, as Rover leads his master to the gypsy shack where his baby is held captive.
finale, a close-up of a bandit firing directly at the v i e w e r . T h e closeup had first b e e n used to personalize and objectify events by G e o r g e A l b e r t Smith in Grandma's Reading Glass (1900). Smith was a m e m b e r of the B r i g h t o n S c h o o l that also included E s m e C o l l i n g s and James W i l l i a m s o n . T h e producer C e c i l H e p w o r t h was based near L o n d o n . His 1905 film, Rescued by Rover, expanded on Porter's advances in continuity and ellipsis to demonstrate the contextual value to a film's pace and m e a n i n g of cutting on action, 'travelling' shots, 'plansequence', 'screen g e o g r a p h y ' and implied information. For a b r i e f and isolated m o m e n t in film history, Britain led the w o r l d . Simple but suspenseful, Rescued by Rover was unrivalled in narrative construction and r h y t h m . Alfred Collins and Z e c c a harnessed its energy to d e v e l o p the c o m i c chase, but the c h i e f beneficiary of the advances of Porter and H e p w o r t h was D . W . Griffith.
15 D. W. Griffith on the set of Intolerance (1916) with Lillian Gish. Behind the camera is Billy Bitzer, whose technical ingenuity enabled Griffith to put many of his ideas into practice during their association (1908-24).
CHAPTER
T W O
The Foundations of Classical Hollywood ' D . W . Griffith, P r o d u c e r o f all great B i o g r a p h successes, r e v o l u t i o n izing M o t i o n Picture drama and f o u n d i n g the m o d e r n technique o f the art. Included in the innovations w h i c h he i n t r o d u c e d and w h i c h are n o w generally f o l l o w e d by the most advanced producers are: the large or close-up figure, distant v i e w s as represented first in Ratnona, the " s w i t c h b a c k " , sustained suspense, the "fade o u t " , and restraint in expression, raising m o t i o n picture acting to the higher plane w h i c h has w o n for it r e c o g n i t i o n as a g e u i n e art.' T h u s ran the full-page advertisement Griffith (1875—1948) placed in the New York Dramatic Mirror to mark his departure from the famous B i o g r a p h c o m p a n y for the n e w l y f o u n d e d M u t u a l i n 1 9 1 3 . F e w then w o u l d h a v e r e c o g n i z e d the earnest theatrical w h o , on seeing a m o v i e for the first time in 1905 declared, 'any m a n e n j o y i n g such a thing should be shot', and w h o , h a v i n g had his adaptation of Tosca rejected, acted in Porter's 1907 Rescued from an Eagle's Nest (as ' L a w r e n c e ' Griffith) solely o u t of penury. S u c h beginnings m a k e Griffith's a c h i e v e m e n t all the m o r e remarkable; indeed, it is unparalleled in the e m e r g e n c e of any art form. In the 4 5 0 - o d d films he directed or supervised b e t w e e n 1908 and 1 9 1 3 , he shaped the basic elements of film-making into the language and syntax that w o u l d serve cinema for o v e r half a century. In the w o r d s of E r i c h v o n S t r o h e i m , w h o graduated from extra to assistant director under Griffith, he 'put beauty and p o e t r y into a cheap and tawdry sort of entertainment'. Y e t for m u c h of this period Griffith was largely unaware that he was transforming filmic expression. C o n t r a r y to the above declaration, the 'father of film t e c h n i q u e ' was n o t an i n n o v a tor. Instead, he was an intuitive refiner and extender of existing c i n e matic methods, w h i c h h e c o m b i n e d w i t h the conventions o f V i c t o r i a n art, literature and drama in order to tell his stories in the most effective w a y . W i t h i n five years of his directorial debut, Griffith had c o m p l e t e l y mastered the film form. A l t h o u g h The Adventures of Dollie (1908) was an i n c o n g r u o u s m i x of realism and cliched melodrama, it had an 23
instinctive narrative fluidity and symmetry. Griffith c o m p o s e d c a r e fully to utilize the w h o l e frame and often used deep focus and l o n g shots to h e i g h t e n the drama. He cut on action t h r o u g h o u t , a l l o w i n g the narrative content to determine the placement of the camera and the timing of the cut, and the last-minute rescue ( w h i c h was to b e c o m e s o m e t h i n g of a trademark) was particularly notable for its r h y t h m and consistency o f screen geography. Griffith's h e a v y w o r k l o a d gave h i m ample opportunity to e x p e r i m e n t w i t h film grammar and rhetoric. In addition to e x p l o r i n g the potential of flashbacks, 'eyeline matches' and camera distances, his earliest pictures also s h o w e d that individual shots w e r e cinematic phrases that could be edited together into meaningful sequences w i t h o u t a c o n c r e t e dramatic l o g i c to link t h e m . The Lonely Villa (1909), for e x a m p l e , contained 52 separate shots in just 12 minutes, injecting pace and tension into M a c k Sennett's scenario. W h e n B i o g r a p h bosses questioned w h e t h e r audiences w o u l d be conversant w i t h such a narrative technique, Griffith replied, ' D o e s n ' t D i c k e n s w r i t e that w a y ? ' His depiction of parallel events and emotions in purely cinematic terms prefigured Eisenstein's ' m o n t a g e of attractions' and M u r n a u ' s 'subjective' camera (see p p . 76 and 60). Similarly, his visual metaphors anticipated S o v i e t theories of associative or intellectual m o n t a g e . E a c h film b r o u g h t a n e w sophistication. A Corner in the Wheat (1909) heralded an increasing c o n c e r n w i t h the content of the i n d i vidual frame, its mise-en-scene. To c o m p l e m e n t his naturalistic e x t e r i ors, Griffith disposed of painted backdrops and used domestic props to create angles and shape and d e e p e n the frame. W o r k i n g closely w i t h the cameraman G . W . ' B i l l y ' B i t z e r ( 1 8 7 2 - 1 9 4 4 ) , h e d e v e l o p e d Porter's tilts, pans and 'tracks' into decipherable forms of expression, e v e n cross-cutting b e t w e e n tracking shots in The Lonedale Operator ( 1 9 1 1 ) . Artificial lighting was used to suggest firelight in The Drunkard's Reformation (1909), but by Pippa Passes (also 1909, but 68 pictures later) he was e m p l o y i n g w h a t came to be called ' R e m b r a n d t lighting' as a narrative and characterization d e v i c e . Graphic t e c h niques, such as the dissolve, 'fade', 'iris' and 'mask', w e r e designated narrative purposes, w h i l e split screens and soft focus w e r e sparingly used for additional impact. Griffith also transformed the art of screen acting, right d o w n to instituting rehearsals. A w a r e that the camera c o u l d magnify e v e n the slightest gesture or expression, he insisted on restraint and an adhere n c e to a range of m o v e m e n t s and mannerisms w h i c h clearly d e n o t e d 24
certain emotions, personality traits and p s y c h o l o g i c a l states. He invariably cast to suit particular physical types, and assembled a c o m p a n y that comprised s o m e of the leading names of the silent era, including Lillian and D o r o t h y Gish, M a r y Pickford, B l a n c h e S w e e t , L i o n e l B a r r y m o r e , D o n a l d Crisp, H e n r y B . Walthall and Wallace R e i d . It is often o v e r l o o k e d h o w versatile Griffith was in his o n e - r e e l days. In addition to melodramas, thrillers and literary adaptations, he directed religious allegories (The Devil, 1908), histories (1776, 1909), morality tales (The Way of the World, 1910), rural romances (A Country Cupid, 1 9 1 1 ) , social commentaries (The Musketeers of Pig Alley, 1 9 1 2 ) , satires (The New York Hat, 1912) and Westerns (The Battle ofElderbush Gulch, 1 9 1 3 ) . In the process he gave cinema a n e w social and intellectual respectability, but despite his achievements Griffith remained largely u n k n o w n . By 1 9 1 3 , Griffith was c o n v i n c e d that his revelation of the truth c o u l d be satisfactorily e x p o u n d e d o n l y in the 'feature' film. H e r e again he was to build on the foundations laid by others. T h e w o r l d ' s first feature, The Story of the Kelly Gang, had b e e n made by Charles Tait in Australia in 1906, but Griffith's ambition had b e e n fuelled by the French film d'art, Queen Elizabeth (1912) and the Italian epic Quo Vadis? ( 1 9 1 3 ) . Furious that his 1 9 1 1 two-reeler, Enoch Arden, had b e e n released in separate parts, Griffith secretly began w o r k on a four-reel biblical spectacle, Judith ofBethulia, in 1 9 1 3 . C o s t i n g an unprecedented $18,000, the film underlines all Griffith's strengths and weaknesses as a director. Sets and costumes w e r e painstakingly authentic, the narrative d e v e l o p m e n t taut, and the acting exceptional. T h e editing, particularly of the battle scenes, in w h i c h mass action was never permitted to s w a m p the drama of the individual, p o w e r f u l l y a c h i e v e d w h a t Eisenstein was to call 'the shock value of colliding images'. Y e t in striving for scale and significance, Griffith discarded experimentation and e x p o s e d his intellectual shallowness. His vision overbalanced the rather contrived melodramas w h i c h he considered to be ' H i g h A r t ' . C o n s e q u e n t l y , sentimentality, p r e tentiousness and political naivety permeate m u c h of his later w o r k , including his b e s t - k n o w n films, Tlie Birth of a Nation (1915) and Intolerance ( 1 9 1 6 ) . A l l Griffith had learned during his apprenticeship w e n t into The Birth of a Nation, his adaptation of T h o m a s D i x o n ' s C i v i l W a r novels, The Leopard's Spots and The Clansman, and cinematically, there is m u c h to admire: the reconstruction of period, the historical tableaux, the night photography, the use of tint and the unparalleled p o w e r and 25
16 D. W. Griffith, The Birth of a Nation (1915). Composed and lit to resemble the prints of the Civil War photographer Mathew Brady, the battle scenes were originally tinted red to convey the fury of combat.
control of the editing, w h i c h linked 1544 separate shots into a c o g e n t narrative. O v e r r i d i n g all, h o w e v e r , is the film's racial bigotry, w h i c h did m u c h to r e v i v e the m o r i b u n d Ku K l u x Klan and caused a storm of protest. Still, The Birth of a Nation was a h u g e c o m m e r c i a l success, r e c o u p i n g its costs in just t w o months. Griffith invested m u c h of the profit into his w o u n d e d response to the adverse reaction, Intolerance. Interweaving four narratives spanning 2500 years, Griffith aimed to s h o w h o w truth has always b e e n threatened by hypocrisy and injustice, but he was ultimately frustrated by thematic inconsistency and the idealism of his solutions. H o w e v e r , o n c e again there w e r e m a n y cinematic highlights: the tracking shot of the vast B a b y l o n set, the battle scenes, the m o m e n t s of intimate detail amidst the broad s w e e p 26
17 D. W. Griffith, Intolerance (1916). The Babylon set designed by Walter W. Hall after matte shots taken by Bitzer of the Tower of Jewels at the San Francisco Exposition (1914).
and the abstract, or expressive, m o n t a g e w h i c h unified the individual segments. B u t audiences w e r e confused by the style and alienated by the sermonizing and Griffith spent the rest of his career paying for its failure. Suffocated by the studio system, his w o r k b e c a m e increasingly conventional, old-fashioned and, despite fine films from Broken Blossoms (1919) to Orphans of the Storm (1922), increasingly prone to repetition and sentimentality. Griffith's final film, The Struggle ( 1 9 3 1 ) , was a failure w h i c h forced h i m to endure a seventeen-year exile from H o l l y w o o d , snubbed by the m e d i u m he had done so m u c h to fashion. Suffocation by the strictures of the studio system was a fate shared by m a n y creative film-makers in the 1920s. Y e t , as the Jazz A g e d r e w to a close, it was hard to recall that m a n y of the m o g u l s w h o 27
maintained such a tight grip on every aspect of A m e r i c a n cinema had first entered the industry as small-time exhibitors h o p i n g to cash in on w h a t was still considered a disreputable novelty. H o w e v e r , m e n like C a r l L a e m m l e (1867—1939), A d o l p h Z u k o r (1873—1976), W i l l i a m F o x ( 1 8 7 9 - 1 9 5 2 ) , Jesse Lasky (1880-1958), Samuel Goldfish (later G o l d w y n , 1 8 8 2 - 1 9 7 4 ) , M a r c u s L o e w ( 1 8 7 0 - 1 9 2 7 ) and Louis B . M a y e r (1885—1957), mostly first-generation J e w i s h immigrants from Eastern E u r o p e , had the a c u m e n and courage to e m e r g e victorious from the business wars of the 1910s. F o l l o w i n g the premiere o f the V i t a s c o p e i n N e w Y o r k i n A p r i l 1896, there was an instant and insatiable c l a m o u r n a t i o n w i d e for p r o j e c t e d m o v i n g pictures. To satisfy demand, producers and exhibitors flagrantly ignored m a c h i n e patents and exploited the absence of f i l m strip copyright. In 1897, armed w i t h the patent on the Latham L o o p , E d i s o n b e g a n to fight back, systematically suing e v e r y c o m p a n y that used the l o o p in its cameras or projectors. T h e n , furious at the w a y Edison had taken the credit for the V i t a s c o p e and appropriated its m e c h a n i s m for his o w n Projecting K i n e t o s c o p e , T h o m a s A r m a t also b e g a n issuing writs on the strength of the l o o p patent, including one against Edison himself. As the smaller companies folded, B i o g r a p h entered the fray, h a v i n g secured the A r m a t and Latham patents. Eventually, in excess of t w o hundred legal actions came before the U . S . courts. In the meantime, an exhibition revolution was taking place. M o v i e s had b e e n part of vaudeville bills or fairground attractions before the o p e n i n g of the first permanent v e n u e , T h o m a s L. Tally's Electric Palace in Los A n g e l e s in 1902. T h e first 'store-front' theatre o p e n e d in 1905 and by 1910 there w e r e s o m e 10,000 of these ' n i c k e l o d e o n s ' across the U . S . , d r a w i n g up to 80 million patrons each w e e k . Previously, exhibitors had b o u g h t strips outright at so m u c h per foot depending on the p r o d u c t i o n costs and the fdm's b o x - o f f i c e p o t e n tial. H o w e v e r , audiences w e r e n o w d e m a n d i n g regular changes o f p r o g r a m m e and to facilitate such rapid turnover, a n e w player entered the industry. T h e distributor b o u g h t or leased films from the producer and then rented t h e m to the exhibitor, thus guaranteeing a market for the producer and cost-effective availability for the exhibitor. This three-tier system is largely still in effect today. Edison h o p e d to exploit the n e w c o m m e r c i a l structure to e x c l u d e the mavericks o n c e and for all. In 1908 he invited A r m a t , the distributor G e o r g e K l e i n e and the seven leading companies - B i o g r a p h , Vitagraph, Essanay, Selig, Pathe, L u b i n and K a l e m - to f o r m the 28
M o t i o n Picture Patents C o m p a n y ( M P P C ) , t o w h i c h Melies was added the f o l l o w i n g year. P o o l i n g their patents, the m e m b e r s agreed n o t to lease or sell to any distributor w h o dealt w i t h any independent c o m p a n y . To strengthen their hand, they signed a deal w i t h Eastman g i v i n g t h e m exclusive access to perforated celluloid stock. Effectively, A m e r i c a n p r o d u c t i o n lay in the hands of just nine companies, w h i l e distribution was limited to the m e m b e r s of the General F i l m C o m p a n y , w h o charged exhibitors a w e e k l y $2 licence fee for the privilege o f renting M P P C pictures. T o protect their assets further from the moral backlash that a c c o m p a n i e d the m o v i e b o o m , the M P P C also f o u n d e d the N a t i o n a l B o a r d o f Censorship i n 1908 (renamed the N a t i o n a l B o a r d of R e v i e w in 1915) to establish a c o n sistent c o d e of standards and principles. B u t no sooner had the Patents W a r e n d e d than the Trust W a r b r o k e out. U n w i l l i n g t o b r o o k the M P P C m o n o p o l y , the distributors W i l l i a m S w a n s o n and C a r l L a e m m l e w e n t 'independent' and b e g a n t o p r o d u c e their o w n films. Others, including F o x and Z u k o r , f o l l o w e d suit and by 1910 they, and companies such as R e l i a n c e , Eclair, Majestic, P o w e r s , R e x , C h a m p i o n , Nestor, L u x and C o m e t , had united t o form the M o t i o n Picture Distributing and Sales C o m p a n y , w h i c h sued the M P P C under g o v e r n m e n t anti-trust laws. T h e M P P C responded v i o lently, e m p l o y i n g gangs to destroy e q u i p m e n t and intimidate casts and crews, but despite such strongarm tactics, the independents prospered and by the time the courts o u t l a w e d the M P P C in 1 9 1 7 most of its constituents had already folded. T h e last, Vitagraph, was taken o v e r by Warners in 1925. E n t r e n c h e d in H o l l y w o o d folklore is the tradition that the film industry settled there because its distance from the M P P C ' s N e w Y o r k offices and its p r o x i m i t y to the M e x i c a n border made it an ideal TrustW a r h a v e n . In fact, units had b e e n shooting in such suntraps as Jacksonville, San A n t o n i o , Santa Fe and C u b a since 1907 to maintain p r o d u c t i o n levels during the East C o a s t winter. B u t in addition to l o n g daylight hours, southern California also offered a diversity of scenery — mountains, valleys, islands, lakes, coastlines, deserts and forests — that c o u l d plausibly e v o k e locations a n y w h e r e in the w o r l d . M o r e o v e r , Los A n g e l e s was a thriving theatrical centre, w i t h a plentiful supply of casual labour, l o w taxes and an abundance of cheap land, w h i c h the companies b o u g h t for their studios, standing sets and 'back lots'. B y 1 9 1 5 , 6 0 per cent o f A m e r i c a n p r o d u c t i o n was based i n H o l l y w o o d , but it was the First W o r l d W a r that ensured it also b e c a m e the c i n e m a capital of the w o r l d . Hostilities not o n l y halted most 29
E u r o p e a n p r o d u c t i o n (thus r e m o v i n g H o l l y w o o d ' s serious c o m p e t i tion), but also precipitated an e c o n o m i c b o o m in the U . S . , w h i c h caused costs and profits alike to soar. T h e independents, enriched by their successful investment in features, seized the opportunity to strengthen their position through a series of foundations and mergers. L a e m m l e b o u g h t out a n u m b e r of minors to form Universal Pictures i n 1 9 1 2 . W i l l i a m F o x founded the F o x Film C o r p o r a t i o n i n 1915 ( b e c o m i n g T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y - F o x in 1935). Paramount Pictures eventually e m e r g e d from the u n i o n of Z u k o r ' s Famous Players, Jesse Lasky's Feature Play C o m p a n y and the Paramount distribution e x c h a n g e . M e t r o - G o l d w y n - M a y e r ( M G M ) e v o l v e d i n 1924 from companies originally started by M a y e r , G o l d w y n , L o e w and Nicholas S c h e n c k . H a n y , Albert, Jack and S a m formed W a r n e r Bros. Pictures in 1923 and Harry and Jack C o h n set up C o l u m b i a the f o l l o w i n g year. T o g e t h e r w i t h U n i t e d Artists and the 'poverty r o w ' studios M o n o g r a m and R e p u b l i c , these w e r e the companies at the core of the studio system that was to sustain H o l l y w o o d for some forty years. ( R K O was not founded until the sound era.)
18
T h e blueprint for successful studio m a n a g e m e n t was devised by T h o m a s Ince (1882-1924). Actor-turned-director, he made some t w o hundred shorts for Laemmle's Independent M o t i o n Picture C o m p a n y (IMP) before graduating to features in 1 9 1 3 . A pragmatic rather than an aesthetic director, Ince was n o t e d for his pace and pictorialism. Despite a k e e n eye for detail, he was primarily concerned w i t h c o n v i n c i n g narrative f l o w and edited simply to keep the action fast and clear. T h e French film theorist Jean M i t r y w r o t e : ' I f Griffith was the first p o e t of an art w h o s e basic syntax he created, o n e can say that Ince was its first dramaturgist.' Apart from the pacifist tract Civilization (1916), his b e s t - k n o w n films w e r e Westerns, particularly those starring W i l l i a m S. Hart. A major influence on J o h n Ford, they established m a n y of the genre's dramatic conventions and introduced its characteristically sharp, deep-focus photography. In 1 9 1 5 , Ince, n o w a partner in the Triangle Film Corporation along w i t h Griffith and Sennett, vacated his 'Inceville' studio for a vast n e w c o m p l e x at C u l v e r C i t y , abandoning directing for a purely supervisory role t w o years later. H o l l y w o o d ' s first e x e c u t i v e producer, Ince divided the studio's artistic and administrative functions and introd u c e d detailed shooting scripts, tight schedules and production notes to ensure that films came in on time and budget. He oversaw every stage of production, from story conference to final print, and his 'front office' m e t h o d resulted in a n u m b e r of expertly constructed features, 30
18 Thomas lace, Civilization (1916), a parable in which Christ enters the body of an inventor to reveal the evils of war to a Teutonic king. Ince's death (allegedly, catching a bullet meant for Charlie Chaplin) was one of the many Hollywood scandals in the early 1920s.
including The Patriot (1916) and Anna Christie (1923), as w e l l as imparti n g film craft to directors of the calibre of H e n r y K i n g , Frank B o r z a g e and Fred N i b l o . Ironically, Ince's fortunes declined under the system he had helped to create. A similar fate awaited another studio p i o n e e r and o n e of Griffith's most fervent disciples, M a c k Serinett (1880-1960), w h o s e frantic comedies o w e d as m u c h to his-mentor's editing techniques as they did to burlesque, p a n t o m i m e , the commedia dell'arte, circus and the chase f i l m s o f Z e c c a and M a x Linder. Sennett was the progenitor o f the most b e l o v e d and durable of all silent screen techniques — slapstick. W h e t h e r parodying popular styles (The Iron Nag and The Uncovered Wagon, both 1923) or treating caricatured humans as unbreakable props in a hostile w o r l d (The Rounders, 1 9 1 4 and The Surf Girl, 1916), Sennett had just t w o rules: that movies moved and that no g a g should be longer than 100 seconds. A master of location and improvisation, he made the camera the servant of the action, e n h a n c i n g the c o m e d y 31
w i t h trick photography, 'undercranking' and the inspirational timing of his editing. He also had an instinctive nose for talent: Harry Langdon, B e n Turpin, Charley Chase, Chester Conklin, Billy Bevan and Fred M a c e all m a d e their names at his K e y s t o n e studio, as did Frank Capra, as a gag-writer. By the m i d - i Q i o s , Sennett c o u l d style himself the ' K i n g o f C o m e d y ' , w i t h his K e y s t o n e K o p s and troupe o f B a t h i n g Beauties r e n o w n e d t h r o u g h o u t the w o r l d . H o w e v e r , his pace, non sequiturs and zaniness did not suit the style of perhaps his most important discovery, Charlie C h a p l i n (1889—1977). Joining K e y s t o n e from Fred Karno's music-hall troupe in 1 9 1 3 , C h a p l i n was originally hired, at $150 a w e e k , as a foil for m o r e established performers, such as M a b e l N o r m a n d and R o s c o e 'Fatty' A r b u c k l e . After just t w e l v e shorts he was directing himself, as w e l l as w r i t i n g and editing m u c h of his material. He devised the tramp character that w o u l d m a k e h i m the screen's first international star for his second film, Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914), although his personality was to be continuously d e v e l o p e d and refined t h r o u g h o u t Chaplin's career. A r b u c k l e ' s trousers, M a c k Swain's moustache and F o r d Sterling's shoes, together w i t h the derby, cane and ill-fitting j a c k e t , w e r e allegedly selected at random, but their 'messy elegance' irresistibly recalls Linder's dapper dandy. C r u d e but romantic, fallible but resilient, the 'little f e l l o w ' was a cynic w i t h a poetic e y e , a rascal w i t h a prudish morality. A u d i e n c e s e v e r y w h e r e identified w i t h this outsider w h o yearned for comfort t h o u g h despising its shallowness. C o n s i s t e n d y r o o t e d i n the p o v e r t y o f his L o n d o n c h i l d h o o d , Chaplin's c o m e d y was always v e r y personal, c o m b i n i n g nostalgia w i t h a horror of social injustice. D e r i v i n g m u c h of his h u m o u r from character and locale, he used films like Easy Street and The Immigrant (both 1 9 1 7 ) to tackle such controversial topics as drug abuse, street crime and prostitution, w h i l e balletic comedies, including The Rink, The Floorwalker (both 1916) and The Cure ( 1 9 1 7 ) , w h i c h D e b u s s y admired for their r h y t h m and energy, a l l o w e d h i m simply to demonstrate his genius as a c l o w n . C h a p l i n s l o w e d Sennett's pace and r e d u c e d the gag c o u n t to exploit fully the c o m i c potential of each situation, so that scenes depended on the impact of the j o k e s and not on their m e r e existence. His use of props s h o w e d the range of his c o m i c ingenuity. A l t h o u g h they w e r e always unpredictable and likely to turn against h i m , as in One A.M. and The Pawnshop (both 1 9 1 6 ) , Chaplin's props w e r e e m p l o y e d to define character and express inner feelings, g i v i n g depth to the surface c o m e d y . B u t central to the success of all Chaplin's films w e r e the intelligence and grace of his o w n performance.
19 The Keystone Kops. Mack Sennett's seven-man comic force made its first appearance in December 1912. Led by Ford Sterling's Chief Teheezel, the Kops became a proving ground for aspiring comics.
T h e r e is an irony in the title of Chaplin's debut film, Making a Living (1914), for, as a founder of the star system, his value rose and his artistic i n d e p e n d e n c e g r e w e n o r m o u s l y w i t h each n e w contract. L e a v i n g K e y s t o n e in 1 9 1 5 , he j o i n e d Essanay to m a k e fourteen films a year at $1250 per w e e k , w h e r e he began his association w i t h R o l l i e T o t h e r o h , E d n a Purviance and Eric C a m p b e l l , respectively his regular cameraman, leading lady and adversary. He switched to M u t u a l in 1 9 1 6 , w h e r e he made t w e l v e films for a w e e k l y $10,000, before securing in 1918 a $ 1 - m i l l i o n deal to m a k e just eight pictures for First National, one of w h i c h , The Kid (1921), was his first feature. In 1 9 1 9 , he c o - f o u n d e d U n i t e d Artists w i t h Griffith, M a r y Pickford and D o u g l a s Fairbanks, through w h i c h he released all subsequent w o r k from A Woman of Paris in 1923. 33
20 Charles ChapUn, Ttie Count (1916). Chaplin's comedy relied heavily on typage. Eric Campbell played Charlie's adversary in 11 shorts, while Edna Purviance personified the ideal woman in the majority of his films from 1915 to 1923.
Periods of inactivity b e g a n to l e n g t h e n and although The Gold Rush (1925), City Lights (1931) and Modern Times (1936) are a m o n g his most famous films, C h a p l i n was increasingly seduced by h i g h b r o w acclaim from the m i d - i 9 2 0 s . As the T r a m p lost his c o m m o n t o u c h , C h a p l i n b e c a m e m o r e and m o r e self-conscious and fluency and spontaneity gave w a y to pretension and sentimentality. His directorial style had intimacy and a natural instinct for establishing the dynamic b e t w e e n camera and performer, but his methods w e r e highly conventional. W h i l e his seamless editing never detracted from the action, his prefere n c e for bright, flat lighting, carefully c o m p o s e d sets, l o n g shots and 'sequence takes' betrayed a technique still firmly rooted in the stage tradition. His limitations as b o t h director and intellectual w e r e ultimately exposed in his 'talkies', The Great Dictator (1940), Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957) and The Countess from Hong Kong (1966). 34
21 Charles Chaplin's Modern Times (1936) borrowed heavily from Rene Clair's A Nous la liberie (1931) but its greater debt was to Soviet revolutionary cinema, causing it to be banned as Communist propaganda by Hitler and Mussolini. Chaplin took his revenge with The Great Dictator (1940).
If Chaplin's style remained largely theatrical, Buster Keaton's was w h o l l y cinematic, despite his o w n vaudeville b a c k g r o u n d . In 1 9 1 7 , K e a t o n (1895—1966) began w o r k i n g w i t h Fatty A r b u c k l e and o v e r the next t w o years p r o d u c e d fifteen two-reelers of increasing sophistication. In 1 9 1 9 he formed his o w n p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n y and b e t w e e n 1920 and 1923 made nineteen supremely visual shorts, including One Week (1920), The Playhouse, The Boat (both 1 9 2 1 ) , Cops (1922) and Tlie Balloonatic (1923), w h o s e elaborate structure and fluid editing rank t h e m a m o n g the finest of the period. Beautifully photographed, w i t h meticulous attention to location and mise-en-scene, Keaton's features s h o w e d an e v e n greater awareness of the camera's ability to register c o m e d y , Sherlock Jr (1924) and Tlie Cameraman (Edward S e d g w i c k , 1928) actually exploring the cinematic process itself. U n l i k e other silent c o m i c s , K e a t o n required c o m p l e x and credible dramatic situations from w h i c h his h u m o u r c o u l d naturally emerge, 35
22 A 1929 Soviet poster for The General (1927), with Buster Keaton as Johnny Gray and Marion Mack as Annabelle Lee.
such as the family feuds in Our Hospitality (1923) and Steamboat BillJr (1928). O n c e the plot was established, he unleashed a series o f ' t r a j e c tory' gags, w h i c h impelled h i m t h r o u g h n u m e r o u s dramatically c o n nected incidents that culminated in hilarious pay-offs. Superbly constructed and timed, these energetic, y e t precise and often dangerous, gags pitted the stone-faced K e a t o n against such giant props as a train, a boat, a waterfall, cascading boulders and falling house-fronts, as w e l l as battalions of pursuers in chases w h o s e pace belied their intricacy. A l t h o u g h K e a t o n often shared the directorial credit w i t h E d d i e C l i n e , there is o n l y o n e creative force b e h i n d such pictures as The Three Ages (1923), The Navigator (1924), Seven Chances (1925), Battling Butler (1926) and College (1927). C h r o n i c l i n g the daring resue of a l o c o m o t i v e at the height of the C i v i l W a r , Tlie General (1927) is Keaton's u n d o u b t e d masterpiece. A dexterous b l e n d of period authenticity, glorious location photography, dramatic action and thrilling c o m e d y , the film was nevertheless a c o m mercial failure and K e a t o n was to m a k e o n l y t w o m o r e features for his o w n p r o d u c t i o n c o m p a n y before i t was b o u g h t o u t b y M G M i n 1928. Despite the adherence of such E u r o p e a n avant-gardists as Ionesco, L o r c a , Bufiuel, D a l i and B e c k e t t ( w h o is said to have written Waiting for Godot w i t h K e a t o n in mind), he enjoyed relatively little success w i t h A m e r i c a n critics and audiences. Personal and professional p r o b lems blighted the remainder of K e a t o n ' s career, although it was studio discipline, rather than the c o m i n g of sound, that s e e m e d to take the p o w e r and p o e t r y out o f his c o m e d y . S o u n d certainly a c c o u n t e d for the decline o f b o t h Harry L a n g d o n (1884-1944) and H a r o l d L l o y d ( 1 8 9 3 - 1 9 7 1 ) . J o i n i n g Sennett in 1924, L a n g d o n , a baby-faced i n n o c e n t trapped in a cruel w o r l d , e n j o y e d b r i e f fame thanks to his collaboration w i t h Frank C a p r a (1897—1992), w h i c h y i e l d e d Tramp, Tramp, Tramp, The Strong Man (both 1926) and Long Pants (1927). His whimsical, p a n t o m i m i c style required great subtlety, but such self-directed features as The Chaser (1928) disclosed Langdon's limited range, and his later appearances w e r e confined to m i n o r character roles. L a c k i n g the depth o f Langdon's c o m e d y o f emotions and responses, Lloyd's pictures had a compensatory pace andj'oie de vivre. He started as a Universal extra and spent t w o years playing the Chaplinesque hobos L o n e s o m e L u k e and W i l l i e W o r k , before creating the familiar, bespectacled b o y - n e x t - d o o r in Over the Fence ( 1 9 1 7 ) . Earnest, decent, y e t ruthlessly ambitious, L l o y d ' s character typified the 'can d o ' m e n t ality of 1920s A m e r i c a , although there was little social c o m m e n t a r y or 37
satire in such films as Grandma's Boy (1922), Girl Shy (1924) and The Freshman (1925). B u t L l o y d w i l l be best r e m e m b e r e d for his ' c o m e d y of thrills', expertly constructed gags entirely dependent on his agility and the illusion of highrise peril, typified by his hanging from the hands of a w a l l c l o c k in Safety Last (1923). S o u n d m a y n o t have suited Lloyd's kinetic h u m o u r , but it greatly enhanced the appeal o f t w o m o r e H a l R o a c h (1892—1992) comedians, Stan Laurel (1890-1965) and O l i v e r H a r d y ( 1 8 9 2 - 1 9 5 7 ) . First appeari n g together in Slipping Wives in 1926, they b e c a m e , o v e r the next ninety-nine films and t w e n t y - f i v e years, the finest c o m e d y team in cinema history. Perfect physical foils, they q u i c k l y d e v e l o p e d the characteristics that parodied A m e r i c a n bourgeois pettiness and a m b i tion: H a r d y — p o m p o u s , boastful and bullying, Laurel — naive, i n c o m petent and vengeful. Perpetually b o w l e r - h a t t e d and d o w n on their luck, they w e r e the classical exponents of H e n r i Bergson's 'snowball' theory of c o m e d y , as seemingly harmless situations descended into 23 Harold Lloyd in Safety Last (Fred Newmeyer and Sam Taylor, 1923). Despite losing a thumb and part of a forefinger during the making of Haunted Spooks (1920), Lloyd invariably performed his own stunts.
24 Olivet Hardy, Fay Holderness and Stan Laurel in Hog Wild (James Parrott, 1930). Only Laurel and Hardy could meet such an end in attempting to erect a radio aerial.
chaos and destruction in such two-reelers as Two Tars (1929), Laughing Gravy ( 1 9 3 1 ) , The Music Box (1932) and Busy Bodies (1933)- Laurel devised m u c h of their business, in w h i c h props played a k e y part, w h e t h e r to throw, fall over, smash or simply hit each other w i t h . Features such as Pardon Us ( 1 9 3 1 ) , Sons of the Desert (1933), Our Relations (1936), Way Out West (1937) and Blockheads (1938) increased their popularity w o r l d w i d e , but their careers dipped after 1940, w h e n executives a t F o x and M G M curtailed the freedom they had enjoyed under R o a c h ; their later films w e r e essentially c o n t r i v e d vehicles for recycled routines. M o r e than a quarter of a century after Laurel and Hardy's last feature in 1950, A d o l p h Z u k o r , another of the leading architects of the studio system, w a s still an important H o l l y w o o d figure. Z u k o r had c o n t i n u e d to thrive after the failure of the all-or-nothing b l o c k - b o o k i n g system he had introduced in 1 9 1 6 to guarantee n a t i o n w i d e screen-time for his 39
products. U n d a u n t e d by the formation of the First National Exhibitors C i r c u i t , w h i c h b e g a n m a k i n g its o w n films i n 1 9 1 7 , Z u k o r sought W a l l Street b a c k i n g and b e g a n b u y i n g theatres, transforming t h e m into opulent m o v i e palaces along the lines o f Samuel L . Rothafel's R o x y and R a d i o C i t y M u s i c Hall i n N e w Y o r k and Sid Grauman's C h i n e s e Theatre in H o l l y w o o d itself. S e d u c i n g w o r k i n g and middle class alike, the tawdry splendour of the 'dream palaces' mirrored that of the majority of the silent m o v i e s they exhibited, m a n y of w h i c h have b e e n lost for ever and m a n y m o r e l o n g forgotten. W h a t e v e r their quality, m o t i o n pictures represented a h u g e investm e n t that had to be protected: as the studios transmuted into film factories, art b e c a m e increasingly subservient to industrial and business practices. N o t h i n g was left to chance. Anticipating and pandering to public taste, the m o g u l s devised a diet of prestige pictures and p o t b o i l ers, all made a c c o r d i n g to p r o v e n formulae and b a c k e d by mass p u b l i c ity and advertising. Vital to the success of these marketing campaigns was the cornerstone of the entire studio set-up, the star system. T h e snobbery of theatricals and the miserliness of producers had k e p t screen performers in a n o n y m i t y until 1 9 1 0 , w h e n L a e m m l e lured the ' B i o g r a p h G i r l ' to his I M P studio and, by circulating fictitious reports of her death, turned Florence L a w r e n c e into a star. As w i t h the films themselves, the stars w e r e manufactured a c c o r d i n g to type. A m o n g actresses there w e r e vamps such as T h e d a Bara, P o l a N e g r i and V i l m a B a n k y , f l a p p e r s like Louise B r o o k s and C o l l e e n M o o r e , 'It' girls in the m o u l d of Clara B o w , w o r l d l y w o m e n such as Gloria S w a n s o n and N o r m a T a l m a d g e and serial heroines like R u t h R o l a n d and Pearl W h i t e , w h i l e a m o n g actors there w e r e Latin lovers like R u d o l p h Valentino, R a m o n N o v a r r o and R o d L a R o c q u e , soulful juveniles such as R i c h a r d Barthelmess and Charles R a y , 'It' boys along the lines of J o h n Gilbert, j a d e d playboys like A d o l p h M e n j o u and O w e n M o o r e and c o w b o y s like W i l l i a m S. Hart. In addition there w e r e child and animal stars like Jackie C o o g a n and R i n T i n T i n , and such indefinable stars as Greta G a r b o ( 1 9 0 5 - 9 1 ) , 'the cinema's first truly Existentialist figure', and L o n C h a n e y , 'the m a n of a thousand faces'. T h e biggest stars of the period w e r e M a r y Pickford (1893-1979) a n d D o u g l a s Fairbanks ( 1 8 8 3 - 1 9 3 9 ) . Pickford, 'America's Sweetheart', was a better actress than her films suggest, her instinct for character, grace and c o m i c timing wasted in the w h o l e s o m e (and
25 Pola Negri as Catherine the Great in Forbidden Paradise (1924). Best known as a vamp, Negri here gave a memorable comic performance in her last collaboration with Ernst Lubitsch, with whom she made 7 films.
largely forgotten) roles like Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm (1917) and Pollyanna (1920) in w h i c h the public typecast her. Fairbanks made his name in smart social satires and genre parodies before finding his metier in swashbuckling adventures like The Mark of Zorro (1920), The Three Musketeers (1921), Robin Hood (1922) and The Tltief of Bagdad (1924). T h e entire process was punctiliously managed, w i t h the stars' private lives p r o m o t e d in terms of their screen personae; by 1 9 1 5 such fictionalized truths had turned m o v i e performers into p o w e r f u l c u l tural icons. M a n y b e l i e v e d their o w n publicity and the pressures and rewards of fame led to the excesses w h i c h earned H o l l y w o o d its B a b y l o n i a n reputation and the series of scandals w h i c h j e o p a r d i z e d its privileged position in A m e r i c a n life in the early 1920s. If M a r y Pickford's d i v o r c e from O w e n M o o r e and marriage t o D o u g l a s Fairbanks offended, it paled alongside the furore sparked by the i n v o l v e m e n t (and subsequent acquittal) of Fatty A r b u c k l e in a manslaughter case, the murder of the director W i l l i a m D e s m o n d T a y l o r and the d r u g - i n d u c e d death o f leading m a n Wallace R e i d . Faced w i t h a b o x - o f f i c e slump (partly caused by the spread of such n e w pastimes as m o t o r i n g and the radio) and fearing intervention by Congress, H o l l y w o o d opted for self-regulation and in 1922 appointed W i l l H. Hays as President of the M o t i o n Picture Producers and Distributors o f A m e r i c a ( M P P D A ) . T h e Hays O f f i c e was charged w i t h restoring the industry's positive image (by k e e p i n g deleterious stories from the press) and e n c o u r a g i n g producers voluntarily to submit films for pre-release scrutiny. T h e M P P D A ' s loose invigilation was turned to his advantage by one o f the screen's great s h o w m e n , C e c i l B . D e M i l l e (1881—1959). T h e director of the first feature Western, The Squaw Man (1914), De M i l l e had subsisted on adaptations (Carmen, 1915) and patriotic m e l o dramas (Joan the Woman, 1917) before latching o n t o the t w i n Jazz A g e preoccupations o f w e a l t h and sex, w h i c h h e exploited i n such c o medies of manners as Old Wives for New (1918), Don't Change Your Husband, Male and Female (both 1919) and Forbidden Fruit (1921). Straining for easy sophistication but o v e r w h e l m e d by 'Belasco staging', R e m b r a n d t lighting and stylized mise-en-scene, these vulgar comedies, located m o r e often in the b a t h r o o m than the d r a w i n g r o o m , c o u l d o n l y offer tantalizing glimpses of sin and decadence. B u t w i t h the c o m i n g o f H a y s and his discovery o f the biblical epic, D e M i l l e was able to s h o w v i o l e n c e and debauchery in m o r e graphic detail than ever before, p r o v i d i n g it was punished in the final reel. The Ten Commandments (1924), King of Kings (1927), The Sign of the Cross 42
26 V o n Stroheim's Russian count attempts to seduce Miss Dupont's American wife in his Foolish Wives (1921). The extended shoot and his insistence on hand-colouring and sets that replicated Monte Carlo drove the film's cost up to $1,124,500.
(1932) and Samson and Delilah (1949) rendered h i m in the eyes of the British critic and p r o d u c e r Paul R o t h a , 'a pseudo-artist w i t h a flair for the spectacular and the tremendous', possessing 'a s h r e w d sense of the bad taste of the l o w e r type of the general public, to w h i c h he panders and a fondness for the daring, vulgar and pretentious'. His later career was f o u n d e d on equally extravagant epics, including Cleopatra (1934), The Crusades (1935), Union Pacific (1939) and Tlie Greatest Show on Earth (1952). Theorists such as V a c h e l Lindsay and H u g o Munsterberg had b e e n paying cinema serious critical attention since 1 9 1 5 , but H o l l y w o o d in the 1920s was content to act as a barometer of A m e r i c a n social and political w e l l b e i n g rather than immerse itself in the M o d e r n i s t rebellion that was s w e e p i n g all other art forms (and, indeed, cinema elsew h e r e ) . As a consequence, w h i l e Paramount was happy to encourage De Mille's facile brand of spicy morality, Universal reined in the understated naturalism and intelligence o f Erich v o n Stroheim (1885-1957). 43
26
Griffith's former assistant and military adviser, v o n S t r o h e i m p o r trayed caddish Prussians that made h i m familiar to millions as 'the m a n y o u l o v e to hate'. He reprised the role in his directorial debut, Blind Husbands (1918), a c o m e d y of u n c o m m o n maturity, w i t and s o p h istication w i t h a precision of lighting, costume and d e c o r that offered psychological insights into the motives and emotions of characters trapped in a sexual triangle. V o n Stroheim's obsession w i t h symbolic naturalism chillingly e x p o s e d the cruelty and ugliness of the worlds he satirized, but the intricacy of his detailed realism was dismissed as extravagance by the studio heads. T h e rhythmic m o n t a g e (with alternating tints and tones) of The Devil's Passkey (1919) and the vast sets constructed for Foolish Wives (1921) hoisted costs and p r o l o n g e d schedules. T h e most expensive film ever, Foolish Wives b r o u g h t v o n S t r o h e i m into conflict w i t h Universal's head of p r o d u c t i o n , Irving J. T h a l b e r g , w h o , considering h i m a n inefficient and insubordinate e g o maniac, slashed 14 of the film's proposed 24 reels. Dismissed by T h a l b e r g during the shooting of Merry-Go-Round (1922), v o n S t r o h e i m j o i n e d G o l d w y n Pictures, w h e r e his f i r s t project was an adaptation of Frank Norris's n o v e l McTeague. A t t e m p t i n g to reproduce its Z o l a e s q u e naturalism in purely cinematic terms, he opted for a d o c u m e n t a r y realism c o m p o s e d of l o n g takes, deep-focus p h o t o g r a p h y and an almost static camera. C o m p l e t e d in 1924 at a cost of $500,000, the finished print of Greed ran to 42 reels w i t h a screentime of nine hours. V o n S t r o h e i m himself cut it to 24 reels and his friend, R e x Ingram, shaved another 6, b u t its reduction to 10 reels at the instigation o f T h a l b e r g , n o w p r o d u c t i o n c h i e f a t the n e w l y f o r m e d M G M , was a n act o f vandalism that corrupted v o n Stroheim's vision and destroyed m u c h o f the story's l o g i c . T h e t h r e e - h o u r p r o l o g u e b e c a m e a five-minute treatise on gold, w h i l e fragments of the m a n y extirpated sub-plots and Expressionist sequences w e r e erroneously reinstated as ' s y m b o l i c ' asides. H o w e v e r , such was the p o w e r of v o n Stroheim's mise-en-scene that the film was n o t utterly devalued and it remains o n e of cinema's finest achievements.
76
U n a b l e to withstand the strict supervision under w h i c h he m a d e The Merry Widow (1925), v o n S t r o h e i m left M G M for Paramount only to be replaced on The Wedding March (1927), Queen Kelly (1928) and his sole talkie, Walking Down Broadway (1932) - released the f o l l o w i n g year as Hello Sister! after m u c h reshooting by several hands. D e b a r r e d from directing, he resumed his acting career and appeared in fifty-two films b e t w e e n 1934 and 1955, most notably in R e n o i r ' s Fa Grande Illusion (1937) and W i l d e r ' s Sunset Boulevard (1950). 44
27 Robert Flaherty, Nanook of the North (1922). Shot on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay's Ungava Peninsula, Nanook made pioneering use of the gyroscope camera to achieve its pans and tilts.
W h i l e v o n S t r o h e i m strove for narrative p o w e r t h r o u g h d o c u mentary realism, R o b e r t Flaherty ( 1 8 8 4 - 1 9 5 1 ) used the techniques of narrative editing to heighten the realism of his documentaries. S h o t w i t h a 'participatory camera', the scenic footage and dramatic reconstructions of Nanook of the North (1922) captured the spirit of the E s k i m o lifestyle t h r o u g h an inspired m o n t a g e of close-ups, 'reverse angles', pans and tilts. U t i l i z i n g 'panchromatic' stock and telephoto lenses, Flaherty's second feature, Moana (1926), was criticized for b e i n g a poetic fantasy on Samoan life rather than an anthropological study, but as J o h n Grierson, the British film-maker, pointed out, the v e r y purpose of the d o c u m e n t a r y film was to m a k e 'creative use of actuality'. H o w e v e r , Paramount saw Flaherty primarily as a talented photographer of exotic backgrounds against w h i c h it assigned W. S. V a n D y k e and F. W. M u r n a u to fashion the melodramas White Shadows in the South Seas (1928) and Tabu ( 1 9 3 1 ) . Disillusioned w i t h 45
28 Paul Robeson and Chester A. Alexander in Oscar Micheaux's Body and Soul (1925). From 1918 to 1948, Micheaux (1884—1951) made some 30 films, all with exclusively black casts. Achieving some glamour despite budgetary constraint, features such as Birthright (1924), The Exile (1931), God's Step Children (1938) and The Notorious Elinor Lee (1940) were hugely popular in black neighbourhoods and Latin America. Few, however, have survived.
28
29
H o l l y w o o d , Flaherty emigrated to Britain w h e r e , after Man of Aran (1934), he again found himself confined to location w o r k on Z o l t a n Korda's The Elephant Boy (1937). R e t u r n i n g to the U . S . , he m a d e t w o p o w e r f u l films, The Land (1942) and Louisiana Story (1948), for restricted release. T h e sanitized conditions of the studio system m a y h a v e militated against experiment and overtly personal expression, but they did n o t preclude the fostering of g e n u i n e talent and the p r o d u c t i o n of s o m e fine films. C l a r e n c e B r o w n , Frank B o r z a g e , Sidney O l c o t t and H e n r y K i n g all lent dignity to the sentimental melodrama, the S o v i e t director V s e v o l o d P u d o v k i n hailing K i n g ' s 1921 Tol'able David as a m o d e l of construction that instructed and entertained t h r o u g h its 'plastic material' and authenticity. A l l a n D w a n , Herbert B r e n o n , R u p e r t Julian and Fred N i b l o w e r e a m o n g the most versatile directors of the period, N i b l o ' s 1925 Ben-Hur b e i n g o n e of its most spectacular and b e s t - r e m e m b e r e d epics. 46
A m i d s t the plethora o f matinee pulp, the W e s t e r n came o f age c o u r tesy of The Covered Wagon (James C r u z e , 1923), The Iron Horse (John Ford, 1924) and Tumbleweeds ( K i n g B a g g o t t , 1925), w h i l e Josef v o n Sternberg's atmospheric Underworld (1927), The Dragnet and The Docks of the Underworld (both 1928) performed a similar service for the g a n g ster m o v i e . A p a r t from a series of pernicious ' R e d Scare' pictures, H o l l y w o o d largely steered clear o f politics, although R e x Ingram's The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921) and K i n g Vidor's The Big Parade (1925) and The Crowd (1928) w e r e persuasive pacifist statements and Lois W e b e r ' s ' p r o b l e m pictures' p o w e r f u l social commentaries. She was just o n e of thirty w o m e n directors active in the 1920s, but D o r o t h y Arzner, Margaret W i n k l e r M i n t z and e v e n established stars like Lillian Gish and M a r y Pickford w e r e afforded only limited
29 Ramon Novarro in Fred Niblo's Ben-Hur (1925). Completed after 3 years, at a cost of $4 million, Hollywood's most spectacular silent epic was rightly famed for its sea battle and chariot race, here supervised by the second unit director, B. Reeves Eason.
30 R e x Ingram, The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1921). Telling of the Argentinian Julio Desnoyer's exploits in the Great War, this 150-minute epic made an international star of Rudolph Valentino.
31
32
opportunities b e h i n d the camera. T h e s e w e r e further diminished by the influx o f E u r o p e a n personnel f o l l o w i n g the Parufamet A g r e e m e n t of 1926 (see below). I n pursuit o f C o n t i n e n t a l refinement, H o l l y w o o d had b e e n i m p o r t i n g directors like Ernst Lubitsch ( 1 8 9 2 - 1 9 4 7 ) since the early 1920s. He responded w i t h a series of elegant and ironic comedies, including The Marriage Circle, Forbidden Paradise (both 1924), Lady Windermere's Fan (1925) and So This Is Paris (1926), w h i c h demonstrated a c o n s u m m a t e skill for symbolic detail and i n n u e n d o . M a r y P i c k f o r d called h i m a 'director of doors, n o t p e o p l e ' and the 'Lubitsch T o u c h ' stood in stark contrast t o the vulgarity o f D e M i l l e . Y e t w h e r e h e and the Hungarian director M i c h a e l C u r t i z succeeded, m a n y others failed. T h e Germans M u r n a u , Paul Leni, Lothar M e n d e s and L u d w i g B e r g e r all arrived in H o l l y w o o d in 1926 as part o f the Parufamet A g r e e m e n t , b y w h i c h Paramount and M G M eased the G e r m a n y c o m p a n y Ufa's (see p. 57) financial worries in return for 48
31 Ernst Lubitsch, So This Is Pans (iy2rt) A typically assured comedy of manners, notable for the precise nuances of gesture and expression that characterized the 'Lubitsch Touch' and its superbly choreographed camera movements.
32 F. W. Murnau, Sunrise (1927). Mumau's preoccupations in his Hollywood debut were with camera movement and the play of light. In order to realize his designs, the cinematographers Charles Rosher and Karl Struss made pioneering use of panchromatic stock, nondirectional Ughting and 'dayfor-night' photography.
collaborative rights to facilities and personnel. H o w e v e r , together w i t h the S w e d e s M a u r i t z Stiller and V i c t o r Sjostrom, they w e r e p r e v e n t e d from i m p o s i n g their personalities on the formulaic product they had b e e n hired to transform and departed bitterly disenchanted, although their legacy was apparent in the lighting, d e c o r and c i n e matography o f the classical H o l l y w o o d style. O f the performers, G a r b o was virtually alone in surmounting the problems presented for foreigners b y the c o m i n g o f sound. T h e rise o f Fascism w o u l d b e g e t a second e x o d u s , but in the m e a n t i m e the disillusioned returned to m i x e d fortunes w i t h i n their native industries.
33 Winsor McCay, Gertie the Dinosaur (1909). Along with J. Stuart Blackton and Ernile Cohl, McCay was a pioneer of the animated film and the mischievious Gertie was its first star. This 7-minute film required 10,000 drawings by McCay, inked onto rice paper.
50
CHAPTER
THREE
Film Art 1908-30 In his 1 9 1 6 manifesto on film, the Italian F. T. Marinetti, the founder of Futurism, called the cinema 'a n e w art, m u c h m o r e agile and vast than any other', y e t , he continued, ' e x c e p t for certain films on travel, hunting, wars, film-makers have d o n e no m o r e than inflict on us the most b a c k w a r d - l o o k i n g dramas, great and small. T h e cinema is an a u t o n o m o u s art. T h e c i n e m a must therefore n e v e r c o p y the stage.' H o w e v e r , too m a n y producers w o r l d w i d e misguidedly b e l i e v e d that by duplicating the theatre's m e t h o d on film, they c o u l d import its c u l tural respectability. In France, apart from the intricate courses comiques of Z e c c a , Linder and Jean D u r a n d , w h i c h c o m b i n e d parallel editing w i t h Meliesian trick photography, the majority of films betrayed theatrical influence. E v e n Fantdmas (1913—16), Judex (1916) and the other crime serials of 34 A poster for Louis Feuilkde's serial Fantomas (1913—14). Following the formula of Victor Jasset's Nick Carter series (1908), the serial (5 episodes of 4 to 6 parts each) was composed in depth and atmospherically photographed on location in Paris.
34
Louis Feuillade, in spite of their use of real Paris locations, w e r e essentially tableaux shot from the front w i t h a static camera. H o w e v e r , his films had a compositional depth and density that exploited the artificiality of their interiors to intensify mystery and excitement. M a n a g i n g to c o n v e y b o t h naturalism and fantasy, the atmospheric beauty of each episode derived from Feuillade's poetic imagination and his emphasis on the creative use of m o v e m e n t and space w i t h i n shots, rather than on their juxtaposition — w h a t the theorist A n d r e B a z i n was later to call mise-en-scene. N e g l e c t e d for some forty years, this great metteur-en-scene was lionized in the 1950s by the critics of the French film j o u r n a l Cahiers du cinema, and in many w a y s his singularly personal style qualifies h i m for their highest accolade, auteur. Feuillade's serial style, popular w i t h public and intelligentsia alike, was a conscious revolt against the conventions established in the ' h i g h art' productions k n o w n as films d'art. F o u n d e d in 1908, the Societe Film d ' A r t aimed to seduce the middle classes into cinemas by elevating the aesthetic and intellectual content of the m o v i n g picture t h r o u g h the staging of prestigious plays on the screen. Unfortunately, despite the participation of some of France's leading literary and dramatic luminaries, films d'art remained exactly that — screened plays. N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g a script by the A c a d e m i c i a n H e n r i Lavedan, a score by C a m i l l e Saint-Saens and a cast from the C o m e d i e Francaise, the first film d'art, The Assassination of the Duke of Guise (1908), stylistically predated M e l i e s . Imported from the theatre, the directors Charles Le B a r g y and A n d r e Calmettes had no filmic sense whatsoever, spurning the dramatic potential of intercutting in favour of capturing the action from a single angle in l o n g or m e d i u m shots. Initially acclaimed as a cultural landmark and emulated w o r l d w i d e , film d'art was to enjoy only a fleeting v o g u e , its technical limitations increasingly exposed as grandiose producers added ballets and operas to the repertoire of literary classics. H o w e v e r , it still had a n u m b e r of significant ramifications. Film d'art b r o u g h t cinema an unprecedented social and artistic respectability. It taught film-makers that the b o m bastic acting methods of the stage w e r e w h o l l y unsuitable for the screen and, thanks to pictures such as Louis M e r c a n t o n ' s fifty-minute Queen Elizabeth ( 1 9 1 2 ) , starring Sarah Bernhardt, it c o n v i n c e d p r o ducers of the viability of feature films. N o w h e r e was increased running time m o r e eagerly seized u p o n than in Italy. A l t h o u g h Filotea Alberini, founder of the C i n e s studio, had p r o d u c e d The Capture of Rome in 1905, he had failed to see the potential of the historical melodrama and concentrated on saucy short 52
35 Sarah Bernhardt in Louis Mercauton's Queen Elizabeth (1912). This most prestigious and influential film d'art was imported into the U.S. by Adolph Zukor and persuaded Griffith, among others, of the viability of features.
c o m e d i e s starring the femme fatale Lyda Borelli. H o w e v e r , f o l l o w i n g the success of L u i g i M a g g i ' s The Last Days of Pompeii for A m b r o s i o Films in 1908, he returned to ancient history and the b o o m in costume epics began. Leading the pack w e r e Mario Caserini (Lucrezia Borgia), E n r i c o G u a z z o n i (Brutus), and G i o v a n n i Pastrone (The Fall of Troy, all 1910), and each was to supersede the other in the p r o d u c t i o n of the m u l t i reel superspectacles that w e r e to inspire Griffith. Caserini's nine-reel 1913 remake of The Last Days of Pompeii was immediately outshone by G u a z z o n i ' s Quo Vadis? (1913). Featuring vast three-dimensional sets and m o r e than five thousand extras, Quo Vadis? was little m o r e than a series of impressive, if loosely b o u n d , set-pieces, y e t it made a twentyfold return on its budget. Based on o v e r a year's research, Pastrone's Cabiria (1914) was e v e n m o r e grandiose, its t w e l v e reels boasting s o m e of the most sophisticated special effects of the silent era. Pastrone made pioneering use of artificial light and 'process p h o t o g 53
36 Cabiria (1914). Complete with a credit to the poet Gabriele d'Anmmzio. Giovanni Pastrone's Second Punic War epic profoundly influenced the Babylonian scenes in Griffith's Intolerance.
36
raphy', and invented a dolly and a primitive crane to achieve a series of slow, e x t e n d e d tracking shots initially k n o w n as 'cabiria m o v e ments'. W a r prevented Cabiria from eclipsing Quo Vadis? at the b o x office and, indeed, ended Italy's brief h e g e m o n y of w o r l d cinema. In fact, the First W o r l d W a r was virtually to decimate E u r o p e a n film p r o d u c t i o n for five years. W i t h g o v e r n m e n t s s l o w to appreciate the value of propaganda and m o r a l e - b o o s t i n g escapism, m a n y studios w e r e closed d o w n , their materials and finances diverted to the w a r effort, and their personnel conscripted to record newsreels or to fight. O n l y the film industries of neutral Scandinavia c o n t i n u e d to prosper, enjoying short-lived ' g o l d e n ages' that ended in decades of doldrums. R e n o w n e d for its artistry and controversial films such as H o l g e r Madsen's The Morphine Takers ( 1 9 1 1 ) , Danish cinema reached its peak in 1916 in order to m e e t the demands of G e r m a n theatres suffering from wartime isolation. Y e t , as normality b e g a n to return in 1 9 1 7 , the 54
industry spiralled into decline. N o r d i s k , founded in 1906 and still operating today, saw output drop from 124 features in 1 9 1 6 to just one i n 1928. T h e directors Stellan R y e (1880-1914) and U r b a n G a d (1879—1947) and the silent superstar Asta N i e l s e n (1883—1972, creator of the vamp) had already departed for G e r m a n y in 1 9 1 2 because of the limited resources generated by the small domestic market, and this n e w crisis p r o m p t e d a similar e x o d u s . B e n j a m i n Christensen (1879—1959) w e n t to S w e d e n , w h e r e he shot his b e s t - k n o w n film, Witchcraft through the Ages (1922), w h i l e C a r l T h e o d o r D r e y e r (1889—1968), already k n o w n for his abstract c o m p o s i t i o n and use of intimate close-up, sought opportunities in G e r m a n y and France. Swedish cinema also eventually fell prey to foreign competition, w i t h the leading directors V i c t o r Sjostrom (1879—1960) and Mauritz Stiller (1883—1928) and the latter's protegee Greta G a r b o all in H o l l y w o o d by 1925. T h e y had left a legacy of remarkable features that e x p l o r e d the expressive possibilities of film art. Sjostrom specialized in slow, serious studies of m o o d s and emotions, m a n y of them, like The Girl from the Marsh Croft (1917) and The Phantom Carriage (1921), adapted from the novels of Selma Lagerlof.
37 Victor Sjostrom, The Phantom Carnage (1921). Sjostrom's use of natural landscape and stylized sets gave his films a unique texture and almost mystical atmosphere. Chaplin considered him 'the greatest director in the world'.
A sensitive director of performers, Sjostrom also had great feeling for the natural landscape, w h i c h he used, along w i t h spare, stylized sets, to c o n v e y atmosphere and psychological states. His earliest w o r k , including Ingeborg Holm ( 1 9 1 3 ) , was noted for its mosaic narrative, poetic imagery, deep-focus photography and heightened perspectives, achieved by placing objects at 9 0 to the camera. As his technique b e c a m e m o r e assured, Sjostrom b e g a n h o l d i n g shots to reinforce the significant interaction of character and setting, and e x p e r i m e n t i n g w i t h structure. In Kiss of Death ( 1 9 1 6 ) , for example, he e x a m i n e d the central incident from several v i e w p o i n t s by means of flashback. Despite c o m p l e t i n g nine films for M G M , including acclaimed adaptations of The Scarlet Letter (1926) and The Wind (1927), b o t h w i t h Lillian Gish, Sjostrom ( k n o w n as Seastrom in H o l l y w o o d ) was unable to settle and returned to S w e d e n to resume his acting career, his most notable role b e i n g the tormented academic in Ingmar B e r g m a n ' s Wild Strawberries (1957). 0
Mauritz Stiller was as capable of p r o d u c i n g sombre, p o w e r f u l dramas as Sjostrom, although he too often sacrificed thematic range and emotional depth for technical ingenuity and epic scale. In films such as Sir Arne's Treasure (1919), Gunnar Hede's Saga (1922) and The Atonement of Gosta Berling (1924), he depicted the darker side of the soul by means of a symbolic fusion of m o o d and landscape. His detached style a l l o w e d h i m to j u d g e images in purely filmic terms, and his juxtaposition of k e y elements w i t h i n the mise-en-scene in m a n y w a y s anticipated S o v i e t associative m o n t a g e . As Thomas Graal's Best Film (1917) and the w i t t y c o m e d y of sexual manners Erotikon (1920) testify, Stiller was equally adept at c o m e d y , but his career, f o l l o w i n g disastrous spells at M G M and Paramount, was to be cut short by illness. He was 45 w h e n he died in 1928, the same year the Swedish film industry, b r o k e n by the c o m i n g of sound and an unfavourable c o p r o d u c t i o n deal w i t h the G e r m a n c o m p a n y Ufa, w e n t into l o n g - t e r m decline. T h e thematic and stylistic concerns of the Scandinavians had a considerable impact o n G e r m a n cinema, w h i c h had b e e n rendered still m o r e stagebound by the advent in 1 9 1 2 of Autorenfilme, the G e r m a n equivalent of film d'art. Intended by their producer, Paul D a v i d s o n , to raise standards and status, they w e r e chiefly n o t e w o r t h y for the introduction to film of the legendary stage director M a x R e i n h a r d t . F a m e d for his use of functional sets and chiaroscuro lighting, and his skilled c h o r e o g r a p h y of performers, R e i n h a r d t not only fashi o n e d the l o o k of G e r m a n silent cinema, but also discovered m a n y of
56
J
its leading personalities, including Ernst Lubitsch, E m i l Jannings, C o n r a d Veidt, Fritz Kortner, and A l b e r t Basserman. T h e first G e r m a n film to break w i t h the theatrical tradition was Stellan R y e ' s variation on the Faust theme, The Student of Prague ( 1 9 1 3 ) , w h i c h c o m b i n e d location shooting w i t h a n impressive array o f photographic illusions. Stylistically and thematically prefiguring the Expressionism o f the W e i m a r period, the f i l m s p a w n e d numerous imitations, including The Golem ( 1 9 1 5 ) , directed by R y e ' s leading man, Paul W e g e n e r , and the 1 9 1 6 serial Homunculus, but it failed to break the p r o s c e n i u m m o u l d . P r o d u c t i o n increased rapidly during the war, particularly after the m e r g e r i n D e c e m b e r 1 9 1 7 o f all branches o f the G e r m a n industry into U n i v e r s u m Film Aktiengesellschaft (Ufa), a single, state-subsidized c o n g l o m e r a t e , detailed by General L u d e n d o r f to upgrade output and counter a n t i - G e r m a n propaganda. T h e g o v e r n m e n t sold its shares in 1918 and for the next decade under E r i c h P o m m e r , Ufa's vast N e u b a b e l s b e r g studio operated almost as a collective of directors, p e r formers, cinematographers and designers, primarily e n g a g e d in the pursuit o f artistic excellence. A t h o u g h concentrating m o r e o n distrib u t i o n and exhibition than production, the films that U f a did sponsor w e r e , almost w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n , classics. T h e same c o u l d not be said for the Aufkldrungsfilme ('facts of life films'), w h i c h f o l l o w e d the relaxation o f censorship i n 1 9 1 9 . W i t h titles such as Prostitution, Hyenas of Lust and A Man's Girlhood, they w e r e essentially pornographic and c o u l d n o t have b e e n m u c h m o r e d i v o r c e d from the Aufbruch ('departure'), the vibrant spirit of inteEectual radicalism that pervaded m u c h early W e i m a r art. A v a n t - g a r d e in style and Marxist in o v e r t o n e , it swept aside b o t h o u t m o d e d f i l m m a k i n g practices and h i g h b r o w prejudices against the m e d i u m . Ufa also capitalized on this n e w - f o u n d freedom, consciously c o u r t i n g overseas success w i t h its first peacetime productions, a series of Italianate Kostumfilme, b e g i n n i n g w i t h Joe M a y ' s Veritas vincit in 1 9 1 8 . H o w e v e r , the master of the genre was 'the great h u m a n i z e r of history', Ernst Lubitsch. Invariably starring Pola N e g r i and e m p l o y i n g lavish, period sets, Reinhardt-style lighting, b o l d camera angles and rapid cutting, films such as The Eyes of the Mummy Ma and Carmen (both 1 9 1 8 ) , Madame Dubarry (1919) and Anna Boleyn (1920) explored the sexual intrigues that simmered beneath the pageantry of the past. W h i l e he made dynamic use of c r o w d s , Lubitsch was n e v e r totally comfortable w i t h the epic scale, preferring the intimate detail or i n n u endo that illuminated a scene, a predilection that served h i m w e l l in 57
38 Robert Wiene, The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1919). To some critics the film's Expressionist designs were a conscious departure from the classical Hollywood style or a reflection of post-war national angst; to others they are early examples of self-reflexivity and cinematic deconstruction.
38
39
his cynical social satires The Oyster Pnncess and The Doll (both 1 9 1 9 ) . Studiously a v o i d i n g local subjects, films such as D m i t r i B u c h o w e t s k i ' s Dcmton (1921) and R i c h a r d O s w a l d ' s Lady Hamilton (1922) covertly m o c k e d the heritage of G e r m a n y ' s vanquishers and insinuated that history was shaped m o r e by passionate w h i m than s o c i o - e c o n o m i c or military force. T h e i r popularity w a n e d , h o w e v e r , w i t h the return o f prosperity i n 1924, unlike that of Schauerfilme, horror fantasies that w e r e the direct descendants of the one truly Expressionist film of the era, The Cabinet ofDr Caligari ( 1 9 1 9 ) . W r i t t e n by C a r l M a y e r and Hans Janowitz, the film, telling of an evil asylum director w h o forces a patient (the narrator) to c o m m i t m u r d e r on his behalf, was intended to be an allegory on the misuse of p o w e r . H o w e v e r , through the addition of a framing story, devised by Fritz L a n g (1890-1976) as a means of increasing the Expressionist significance of the mise-en-scene, it was revealed that the narrator was an inmate of the director's institution, thus inverting the m e a n i n g or, at best, leaving it ambiguous | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 30 | https://www.filmsite.org/citi.html | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://www.filmsite.org/images/filmsite-header-bold-A.jpg",
"https://www.filmsite.org/images/filmsite-movie-review-hdr.jpg",
"https://www.filmsite.org/images/top-100.jpg",
"https://www.filmsite.org/posters/citizenkane5.jpg",
"https://www.filmsite.org/reddot.gif",
"https://www.filmsite.org/images/spacer.... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | https://www.filmsite.org/citi.html | Background
The fresh, sophisticated, and classic masterpiece, Citizen Kane (1941), is probably the world's most famous and highly-rated film, with its many remarkable scenes and performances, cinematic and narrative techniques and experimental innovations (in photography, editing, and sound). Its director, star, and producer were all the same genius individual - Orson Welles (in his film debut at age 25!), who collaborated with Herman J. Mankiewicz on the script (and also with an uncredited John Houseman), and with Gregg Toland as his talented cinematographer. [The amount of each person's contributions to the screenplay has been the subject of great debate over many decades.] Toland's camera work on Karl Freund's expressionistic horror film Mad Love (1935) exerted a profound influence on this film.
The film, budgeted at $800,000, received unanimous critical praise even at the time of its release, although it was not a commercial success (partly due to its limited distribution and delayed release by RKO due to pressure exerted by famous megalomaniac publisher W.R. Hearst) - until it was re-released after World War II, found well-deserved (but delayed) recognition in Europe, and then played on television.
The film engendered controversy (and efforts at ruthless suppression in early 1941 through intimidation, blackmail, newspaper smears, discrediting and FBI investigations) before it premiered in New York City on May 1, 1941, because it appeared to fictionalize and caricaturize certain events and individuals in the life of William Randolph Hearst - a powerful newspaper magnate and publisher. The film was accused of drawing remarkable, unflattering, and uncomplimentary parallels (especially in regards to the Susan Alexander Kane character) to real-life.
The notorious battle was detailed in Thomas Lennon's and Michael Epstein's Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1996), and it was retold in HBO's cable-TV film RKO 281 (1999) (the film's title refers to the project numbering for the film by the studio, before the film was formally titled).
The gossip columnist Louella Parsons persuaded her newspaper boss, media mogul William Randolph Hearst that he was being slandered by RKO and Orson Welles' film ("a repulsive biography") when it was first previewed, so the Hearst-owned newspapers (and other media outlets) pressured theatres to boycott the film and also threatened libel lawsuits. Hearst also ordered his publications to completely ignore the film, and not accept advertising for other RKO projects.
However, the title character Charles Foster Kane is mostly a composite of any number of powerful, colorful, and influential American individualists and financial barons in the early 20th century (e.g., Time Magazine's founder and mogul Henry Luce, Chicago newspaper head Harold McCormick, and other magnates of the time). By contrast, the real-life Hearst was born into wealth, whereas Kane was of humble birth - the son of poor boarding-house proprietors. And Kane also was separated from both his mother and his mistress, unlike Hearst.
Similarities (and Some Differences) Between Kane and Hearst Charles Foster Kane William Randolph Hearst
Fictional character
Similarities with Jules Brulatour, millionaire head of distribution for Eastman Kodak and co-founder of Universal Pictures
New York Inquirer San Francisco Examiner, New York Journal Multi-millionaire newspaper publisher, and wielder of public opinion, known as "Kubla Khan" ("In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree - - legendary was the Xanadu where Kubla Khan decreed his stately pleasure dome") Same kind of press lord, "yellow journalist," and influential political figure Political aspirant to Presidency by campaigning as independent candidate for New York State's Governor, and by marrying the President's niece, Emily Monroe Norton. Kane was "twice married, twice divorced. First to a president's niece, Emily Norton, who left him in 1916." Political aspirant to Presidency by becoming New York State's Governor Created an extravagant, palatial Florida mansion, Xanadu ("Florida's Xanadu, world's largest private pleasure ground. Here, on the deserts of the Gulf Coast, a private mountain was commissioned and successfully built. One hundred thousand trees, twenty thousand tons of marble are the ingredients of Xanadu's mountain.... Since the pyramids, Xanadu is the costliest monument a man has built to himself...the still-unfinished Xanadu. Cost? No man can say") "The Hearst Castle" on "Hearst Ranch" land located at San Simeon, California in the central part of the state. An architectural landmark built between 1919 and 1947 for Hearst by his architect Julia Morgan. The site of Hearst Castle was used for Hearst family's camping vacations during Hearst's youth. Kane - an avid collector of a vast number of art objects ("Contents of Xanadu's palace: paintings, pictures, statues, the very stones of many another palace. A collection of everything. So big it can never be catalogued or appraised. Enough for ten museums - the loot of the world"), kept in his home (and packed away at film's end) Hearst - known as an obsessive collector or accumulator of items from around the world - he amassed numerous art objects, antiques, and design elements Souring affair/marriage with talentless 'singer' Susan Alexander (the Hays Code wouldn't permit extra-marital affair)
(Difference: Susan Alexander suffers humiliating failure as opera singer, attempts suicide, separates from Kane) Hearst had a beloved mistress - young, and successful silent film actress Marion Davies, causing Hearst to separate from his wife Millicent Hearst and their five sons by 1925.
(Difference: No breakdown in Davies' unmarried relationship with Hearst)
There were many similarities between Polish mistress/wife Ganna Walska of Chicago heir Harold Fowler McCormick (her fourth husband) who bought expensive voice lessons for her (although she was only mediocre in talent), promoted her lackluster career, and lavishly supported her for the lead role in the production of Zaza at the Chicago Opera in 1920.
Kane bought Susan an opera house ("For wife two, one-time opera singing Susan Alexander, Kane built Chicago's Municipal Opera House. Cost: $3 million dollars")
Although Susan said that her ambition was to be a singer, this career goal was mostly her mother's idea
Excessive patronage of Davies - Hearst bought Cosmopolitan Pictures - a film studio - to promote Davies' stardom as a serious actress, although she was better as a comedienne.
There were some similarities between Chicago Utilities tycoon and business magnate Samuel Insull who financed the construction of the Chicago Civic Opera House in 1929. An urban legend existed that Insull built the opera house for his much younger wife Gladys (a Broadway actress), who had not been hired by New York's Metropolitan Opera. It was true however, that he personally selected the opera and its cast for its opening performance.
Kane's fortune came from his mother Mary Kane and formed the basis of his growing empire: ("An empire through which for fifty years flowed in an unending stream the wealth of the earth's third richest gold mine....Famed in American legend is the origin of the Kane fortune, how to boarding house keeper Mary Kane by a defaulting boarder in 1868 was left the supposedly worthless deed to an abandoned mine shaft - the Colorado Lode") Hearst was the son of George Hearst, a gold-mining millionaire who was known for developing and expanding the Homestake Mine in the late 1870s in the Black Hills of South Dakota, as well as many other mining investments. Character of Walter Parks Thatcher Similarities with financier J.P. Morgan Character of Boss James 'Jim' W. Gettys Similarities with Tammany Hall (NYC) Boss Charles F. Murphy
[Footnote: In early March of 2012, California's Hearst Castle hosted a screening of Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941), 71 years after its original release. It was part of the San Luis Obispo International Film Festival. One of Hollywood's most famous behind-the-scenes battles occurred over the making of the film, when William Randolph Hearst banned coverage of the film in his newspapers, and tried to curtail its success. He accused the film of wrongly portraying him as a ruthless, publishing tycoon who died alone in the castle. Steve Hearst, VP of the Hearst Corporation, who allowed the screening, believed that it would highlight the fictional elements in the movie, and "correct the record." Proceeds from the screening raised money for upkeep of the estate's extensive art collection.]
Welles' film was the recipient of nine Oscar nominations with only one win - Best Original Screenplay (Mankiewicz and Welles). The other eight nominations included Best Picture (Orson Welles, producer), Best Actor and Best Director (Welles), Best B/W Cinematography (Toland), Best Art Direction (Perry Ferguson and Van Nest Polglase), Best Sound Recording (John Aalberg), Best Dramatic Picture Score (Bernard Herrmann with his first brilliant musical score), and Best Film Editing (Robert Wise). With his four Academy Awards nominations, Welles became the first individual to receive simultaneous nominations in those four categories. The less-lauded John Ford picture How Green Was My Valley (1941) won the Best Picture honor. There were at least two reasons for the film not winning Best Picture or any other major awards - (1) the predictable backlash from the Hearst media empire for Welles' passion project that had already been derided with a 'smear' campaign, and (2) the intense dislike for the cocky, acknowledged genius and 25 year-old director and producer Orson Welles who was considered a Hollywood outsider.
Many of the performers from Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre group made their screen debuts in the film, among them Joseph Cotten (Kane's oldest and best friend, and his newspaper's drama critic), Dorothy Comingore (Kane's second wife), Ruth Warrick (Kane's first wife), Ray Collins (Kane's political opponent), Agnes Moorehead (Kane's mother), Everett Sloane (Kane's devoted and loyal employee and business manager), Erskine Sanford (the newspaper's editor-in-chief), Paul Stewart (Kane's butler), George Couloris (Kane's legal guardian and bank manager), and William Alland (the chief investigative reporter).
More importantly, the innovative, bold film is an acknowledged milestone in the development of cinematic technique, although it 'shared' some of its techniques from Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940) and other earlier films. It uses film as an art form to energetically communicate and display a non-static view of life. Its components brought together the following aspects:
use of a subjective camera
unconventional lighting, including chiaroscuro, backlighting and high-contrast lighting, prefiguring the darkness and low-key lighting of future film noirs
inventive use of shadows and strange camera angles, following in the tradition of German Expressionists
deep-focus shots with incredible depth-of field and focus from extreme foreground to extreme background (also found in Toland's earlier work in Dead End (1937), John Ford's The Long Voyage Home (1940), and Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940)) that emphasize mise-en-scene; also in-camera matte shots
low-angled shots revealing ceilings in sets (a technique possibly borrowed from John Ford's Stagecoach (1939) which Welles screened numerous times)
sparse use of revealing facial close-ups
elaborate camera movements
over-lapping, talk-over dialogue (exhibited earlier in Howard Hawks' His Girl Friday (1940)) and layered sound
the sound technique termed "lightning-mix" in which a complex montage sequence is linked by related sounds
a cast of characters that ages throughout the film
flashbacks, flashforwards and non-linear story-telling (used in earlier films, including another rags-to-riches tale starring Spencer Tracy titled The Power and the Glory (1933) with a screenplay by Preston Sturges, and RKO's A Man to Remember (1938) from director Garson Kanin and screenwriter Dalton Trumbo)
the frequent use of transitionary dissolves or curtain wipes, as in the scene in which the camera ascended in the opera house into the rafters to show the workmen's disapproval of Mrs. Kane's operatic performance; also the famous 'breakfast' montage scene illustrating the disintegration of Kane's marriage in a brief time
long, uninterrupted shots or lengthy takes of sequences
Its complex and pessimistic theme of a spiritually-failed man is told from several, unreliable perspectives and points-of-view (also metaphorically communicated by the jigsaw puzzle) by several different characters (the associates and friends of the deceased) - providing a sometimes contradictory, non-sequential, and enigmatic portrait. The film tells the thought-provoking, tragic epic story of a 'rags-to-riches' child who inherited a fortune, was taken away from his humble surroundings and his father and mother, was raised by a banker, and became a fabulously wealthy, arrogant, and energetic newspaperman. He made his reputation as the generous, idealistic champion of the underprivileged, and set his egotistical mind on a political career, until those political dreams were shattered after the revelation of an ill-advised 'love-nest' affair with a singer. Kane's life was corrupted and ultimately self-destructed by a lust to fulfill the American dream of success, fame, wealth, power and immortality. After two failed marriages and a transformation into a morose, grotesque, and tyrannical monster, his final days were spent alone, morose, and unhappy before his death in a reclusive refuge of his own making - an ominous castle filled with innumerable possessions to compensate for his life's emptiness.
The discovery and revelation of the mystery of the life of the multi-millionaire publishing tycoon is determined through a reporter's search for the meaning of his single, cryptic dying word: "Rosebud" - in part, the film's plot enabling device - or McGuffin (MacGuffin). However, no-one was present to hear him utter the elusive last word. The reporter looks for clues to the word's identity by researching the newspaper publisher's life, through interviews with several of Kane's former friends and colleagues. Was it a favorite pet or nickname of a lost love? Or the name of a racehorse? At film's end, the identity of "Rosebud" is revealed, but only to the film audience. [One source, Gore Vidal - a close friend of Hearst, wildly claimed in 1989 in a short memoir in the New York Review of Books that "Rosebud" was a euphemism for the most intimate part of his long-time mistress Marion Davies' female anatomy.]
And finally, the film's title has often been copied or mirrored, as a template for the titles of other biopics or documentaries about a figure often striving for socio-political recognition, as in the following films:
Citizen Saint (1947) about modern miracle worker Mother Frances Cabrini
Damn Citizen (1958) about a Louisiana state politician
Citizen Tania (1989) - about heiress Patty Hearst's abduction by the Symbionese Liberation Army
the HBO made-for-TV Citizen Cohn (1992) - about Senator Joseph McCarthy's loathsome lawyer Roy Cohn (James Woods) of the late 40s and 50s in the HUAC
Citizen Langlois (1995, Fr.) about pioneering film archivist Henri Langlois of the Cinematheque Francaise - with some footage from the 1941 film
Oliver Stone's epic biography Nixon (1995) could have been titled Citizen Nixon -- it's a modern-day 'Citizen Kane' story about another tragic figure, filmed in a disjointed, non-linear or non-chronological fashion (with unexpected flashbacks) and the use of newsreel footage as Welles did, and including an argument between Nixon and his wife at the dinner table - resembling the famed breakfast table scene in Citizen Kane; the famous 18 1/2 minute gap would serve as the enigmatic 'Rosebud'
director Alexander Payne's debut film and political satire Citizen Ruth (1996) about Ruth Stoops (Laura Dern) - a pregnant woman caught as a pawn in the middle of the abortion rights issue
Citizen James (2000) about a young Bronx filmmaker (writer/director/star Doug E. Doug)
the TV series Citizen Baines (2001) about an ex-politician (James Cromwell) dealing with three grown daughters
the documentary Citizen King (2004) - about Martin Luther King, Jr. originally made for PBS' American Experience series
Plot Synopsis
The intriguing opening (a bookend to the film's closing prologue) is filled with hypnotic lap dissolves and camera movements from one sinister, mysterious image to the next, searching closer and closer and moving in. [The film's investigative opening, with the camera approaching closer and closer, may have been influenced by the beginning of Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940). Both films open and close on a matted image of a mansion in the distance.] The film's first sight is a "No Trespassing" sign hanging on a giant gate in the night's foggy mist, illuminated by the moonlight. The camera pans up the chain-link mesh gate that dissolves and changes into images of great iron flowers or oak leaves on the heavy gate. On the crest of the gate is a single, silhouetted, wrought-iron "K" initial [for Kane]. The prohibitive gate surrounds a distant, forbidding-looking castle with towers. The fairy-tale castle is situated on a man-made mountain - it is obviously the estate of a wealthy man. [The exterior of the castle resembles the one in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).]
In a succession of views, the subjective and curious camera, acting omnisciently as it approaches toward the castle, violates the "No Trespassing" sign by entering the neglected grounds. In the private world of the castle grounds, zoo pens have been designed for exotic animals. Spider monkeys sit above a sign on one of the cages marked 'Bengal Tiger.' The prows of two empty gondolas are tied to a wooden wharf on a private lake, and the castle is reflected in the water. A statue of the Egyptian cat god stands before a bridge with a raised drawbridge/portcullis over a moat. A deserted green from the large golf course is marked with a sign needing repair (No. 16, 365 yards, Par 4). In the distance, a single, postage stamp-sized window of the castle is lit, always seen at approximately the same place in each frame. Palm trees surround a crumbling gate on the abandoned, cluttered grounds. The castle appears in a closer, medium shot. During an even closer shot of the window, the light within the window suddenly goes out. From an angle inside the turret room facing out of the enormous window, a silhouetted figure can be seen lying stiffly on a bed in the low-lit room.
The scene shifts to swirling snowflakes that fill the entire screen - here's another mysterious object that demands probing. The flakes surround a snow-covered house with snowmen around it, and in a quick pull-back, we realize it is actually a wintery scene inside a crystal glass globe or ball-paperweight in the grasping hand of an old man. [First Appearance of Glass Ball in Film] Symbolically, the individual's hand is holding the past's memories - a recollection of childhood life in a log cabin. [Psychoanalytically, the glass ball represents the mother's womb. Later in the film, it also is learned that the globe, associated with Susan, represents his first and only innocent love.]
The film's famous, first murmured, echoed word is heard uttered by huge, mustached rubbery lips that fill the screen:
R-o-s-e-b-u-d!
[In reality, no one would have heard Kane's last utterance - in this scene, he is alone when he dies, although later in the film, Raymond the butler states that he heard the last word - a statement not completely reliable. It has been speculated that everything in the film was the dying man's dream -- and the burning of Rosebud in the film's climax was Kane's last conscious thought before death.] An old man has pronounced his last dying word as the snowstorm globe is released from his grip and rolls from his relaxed hand. The glass ball bounces down two carpeted steps and shatters into tiny pieces on the marble floor. [The film's flashbacks reveal that the shattering of the glass ball is indicative of broken love.] A door opens and a white-uniformed nurse appears on screen, refracted and distorted through a curve of a sliver of shattered glass fragment from the broken globe. In a dark silhouette, she folds his arms over his chest, and then covers him with a sheet. The next view is again the lit window viewed from inside. A dissolve fades to darkness.
In an abrupt cut from his private sanctuary, a row of flags is a backdrop for a dramatic, news-digest segment of News on the March! [a simulation/parody of the actual "March of Time" series produced by Time, Inc. and its founder Henry Luce beginning in the mid-30s]. The biopic film-in-a-film is a fact-filled, authoritative newsreel or documentary that briefly covers the chronological highlights of the public life of the deceased man. The faux newsreel provides a detailed, beautifully-edited, narrative-style outline and synopsis of Kane's public life, appearing authentically scratched, grainy and archival in some segments. The structure of the narrative in the newsreel is as follows:
Information about Xanadu and its grandeur
Kane's career (personal, political, and financial) - interwoven
Thatcher's confrontation with Kane for the first time in the snow
Chronological Account of Kane's life
The test screening of the first episode of the series is titled on the first panel, soon followed by the words of a portentous, paternalistic, self-important narrator:
Obituary: Xanadu's Landlord
An explanatory title card with the words of Coleridge's poem is imposed over views of Xanadu (actually a series of shots of San Simeon). Kane and his Xanadu is compared to the legendary Kubla Khan:
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree - -
Narrator of Newsreel: Legendary was the Xanadu where Kubla Khan decreed his stately pleasure dome. Today, almost as legendary is Florida's Xanadu, world's largest private [views of people lounge around Xanadu and its pool] pleasure ground. Here, on the deserts of the Gulf Coast [the camera views the coastline], a private mountain was commissioned and successfully built. [Workmen are shown building the tremendous castle] One hundred thousand trees, twenty thousand tons of marble are the ingredients of Xanadu's mountain. Contents of Xanadu's palace: [crates with statues and other objects are brought into Xanadu] paintings, pictures, statues, the very stones of many another palace - a collection of everything so big it can never be catalogued or appraised, enough for ten museums - the loot of the world. [views of endless numbers of crates arriving] Xanadu's livestock: [views of horses, giraffes, rare birds, a large octopus, an elephant, donkeys, etc.] the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, the beast of the field and jungle. Two of each, the biggest private zoo since Noah. Like the pharaohs, Xanadu's landlord leaves many stones to mark his grave. Since the pyramids, Xanadu is the costliest monument a man has built to himself.
Another explanatory title card:
In Xanadu last week was held 1941's biggest strangest funeral.
Kane's coffin emerges from Xanadu as it is borne by coffin-bearers.
Narrator: Here in Xanadu last week, Xanadu's landlord was laid to rest, a potent figure of our century, America's Kubla Khan - Charles Foster Kane.
The newspaper headline of the New York Daily Inquirer appears with a picture of Kane:
CHARLES FOSTER KANE DIES AFTER LIFETIME OF SERVICE
Entire Nation Mourns Great Publisher as Outstanding American
The paper is removed and other headlines, set in different type and styles from around the nation and world, and with conflicting opinions about Kane, are revealed, announcing his death:
The Daily Chronicle: [note the negative headlines from the Inquirer's main business competitor]
C. F. Kane Dies at Xanadu Estate
Editor's Stormy Career Comes to an End
Death of Publisher Finds Few Who Will Mourn for Him
The Chicago Globe:
DEATH CALLS PUBLISHER CHARLES KANE
Policies Swayed World
Stormy Career Ends for "U.S. Fascist No. 1"
The Minneapolis Record Herald:
KANE, SPONSOR OF DEMOCRACY, DIES
Publisher Gave Life to Nation's Service during Long Career
The San Francisco...
DEATH FINALLY COMES...
The Detroit Star:
Kane, Leader of News World, Called By Death at Xanadu
Was Master of Destiny
The El Paso Journal:
END COMES FOR CHARLES FOSTER KANE
Editor Who Instigated "War for Profit" Is Beaten by Death
France's Le Matin:
Mort du grand Editeur C.F. Kane
Spain's El Correspendencia:
El Sr. Kane Se Murio!
Other foreign language newspapers (Russian and Japanese) also announce his death:
Ezhednevnaya Gazeta (Daily Newspaper)
Bednota ("The Impoverished")
S.F. Kan Velichaishij (C. F. Kane, the greatest)
Izdatel' Umer (publisher died)
Izdatel' Umer v Svoyei Usad'be ("Publisher died in his mansion")
The castle's owner is Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), publisher of the New York Inquirer:
Another title card:
To forty-four million U.S. news buyers, more newsworthy than the names in his own headlines, was Kane himself, greatest newspaper tycoon of this or any other generation.
Narrator: Its humble beginnings in this ramshackle building, a dying daily. [Views of the old Inquirer Building] Kane's empire in its glory [A picture of a US map shows circles widening out over it] held dominion over 37 newspapers, two syndicates, a radio network, an empire upon an empire. The first of grocery stores, paper mills, apartment buildings, factories, forests, ocean liners, [a sign reads COLORADO LODE MINE CO.] an empire through which for fifty years flowed in an unending stream the wealth of the earth's third richest gold mine. [Piles of gold bullion are stacked up and a highway sign reads, COLORADO STATE LINE] Famed in American legend [Kane Jr. is pictured with his mother in a framed portrait] is the origin of the Kane fortune, how to boarding house keeper Mary Kane [a view of Kane's old home, Mrs. Kane's Boarding House] by a defaulting boarder in 1868 was left the supposedly worthless deed to an abandoned mine shaft - the Colorado Lode. [A large bucket tilts, pouring molten ore into a mold] Fifty-seven years later, [A view of the Washington DC Capitol Building] before a Congressional investigation, Walter P. Thatcher, grand old man of Wall Street, for years chief target of Kane papers' attacks on trusts, recalls a journey he made as a youth.
In front of a Congressional investigating committee, Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris) recalls his journey in 1870 to Mrs. Kane's boarding house in Colorado, when he was asked to raise the young boy.
My firm had been appointed trustee by Mrs. Kane for a large fortune which she had recently acquired. It was her wish that I should take charge of this boy, this Charles Foster Kane.
Thatcher refuses to answer a Congressman's question (accompanied with laughter and confusion) about whether the boy personally attacked him after striking him in the stomach with a sled. Thatcher prefers to read a prepared statement of his opinion of Kane, and then refuses to answer any other questions:
Mr. Charles Foster Kane, in every essence of his social beliefs, and by the dangerous manner in which he has persistently attacked the American traditions of private property, initiative, and opportunity for advancement, is in fact, nothing more or less than a Communist!
That same month in New York's Union Square, where a crowd is urged to boycott Kane papers, an opinionated politician speaks:
The words of Charles Foster Kane are a menace to every working man in this land. He is today what he has always been - and always will be - a Fascist!
Narrator: And still, another opinion.
Kane orates silently into a radio microphone in front of a congratulatory, applauding crowd. A title card appears, a quote from Kane himself:
I am, have been, and will be only one thing - an American.
Another title card:
1895 to 1941
All of these years he covered, many of these he was.
Narrator: Kane urged his country's entry into one war [1898 - The Spanish-American War] - opposed participation in another [1919 - The Great War - an image of a cemetery with rows of white crosses] - swung the election to one American President at least [Kane is pictured on the platform of a train with Teddy Roosevelt] - spoke for millions of Americans, was hated by as many more. [an effigy, a caricature of Kane, is burned by a crowd] For forty years, appeared in Kane newsprint no public issue on which Kane papers took no stand, [Kane again appears with Roosevelt] no public man whom Kane himself did not support or denounce - often support [Kane is pictured with Hitler on a balcony], then denounce. [Kane never denounced - and then later supported any of his closest friends who argued with him, including his two wives, Leland and Thatcher. Because he held grudges, he couldn't easily find reconciliation.]
A title card:
Few private lives were more public.
Narrator: Twice married, twice divorced. [Kane and first wife Emily are dressed in wedding clothes, walking outside the White House] First to a president's niece, Emily Norton, who left him in 1916. [A newspaper article reads: "Family Greets Kane After Victory Speech" - his wife and young son are pictured with him outside Madison Square Garden] Died 1918 in a motor accident with their son. Sixteen years after his first marriage, two weeks after his first divorce, [At the Trenton Town Hall, newspaper reporters and photographers crowd around when Kane comes out with Susan] Kane married Susan Alexander, singer at the Town Hall in Trenton, New Jersey. [A poster from one of Susan's performances: "Lyric Theatre, On Stage, Suzan Alexander, Coming Thursday"] For Wife Two, one-time opera singing Susan Alexander, Kane built Chicago's Municipal Opera House. [The cover of an opera program: "Chicago Municipal Opera House presents Susan Alexander in Salammbo, Gala Opening" and a drawing of the Opera House] Cost: $3 million dollars. Conceived for Susan Alexander Kane, half finished before she divorced him, the still-unfinished Xanadu. Cost: No man can say.
A title card:
In politics - always a bridesmaid, never a bride.
Narrator: Kane, molder of mass opinion though he was, in all his life was never granted elective office by the voters of his country. But Kane papers were once strong indeed, [a newspaper machine rolls newspapers through, EXTRA papers move upward] and once the prize seemed almost his. In 1916, as independent candidate for governor, [a view of a banner, KANE for GOVERNOR] the best elements of the state behind him, the White House seemingly the next easy step in a lightning political career, then suddenly, less than one week before election - defeat!...
An iris opens on the Daily Chronicle screaming the headline [note the quotation marks on "Singer" and "Songbird," later described by an interviewee as a bone of contention for Kane]:
CANDIDATE KANE CAUGHT IN LOVE NEST WITH 'SINGER'
The Highly Moral Mr. Kane and his Tame "Songbird"
Entrapped by Wife as Love Pirate, Kane Refuses to Quit Race
...Shameful. Ignominious. Defeat that set back for twenty years the cause of reform in the U.S., [heart-shaped framed pictures of Kane and Susan are pictured in the newspaper] forever cancelled political chances for Charles Foster Kane. [A sign on a gate reads: FACTORY CLOSED, NO TRESPASSING] [1929] [Another sign reads: CLOSED] [The signs repeat the theme of closure/death from the film's opening shot.] Then, in the first year of the Great Depression, a Kane paper closes [On the St. Louis Daily Inquirer building hangs a CLOSED sign]. For Kane in four short years: collapse. [On a map of the US, the circles diminish, leaving only a few] Eleven Kane papers merged, more sold, scrapped.
A title card:
But America Still Reads Kane Newspapers and Kane Himself Was Always News.
In 1935, returning from Europe by ship, Kane is asked by the press (the reporter was an uncredited cameo role for cinematographer Gregg Toland) on arrival in New York harbor, about contemporary politics, and the "chances for war in Europe":
Reporter: Isn't that correct?
Kane: Don't believe everything you hear on the radio. [A sly reference to Welles' own infamous 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds that sent listeners into a panic.] Read the 'Inquirer'!
Reporter: How did you find business conditions in Europe?
Kane: How did I find business conditions in Europe, Mr. Bones? With great difficulty. (He laughs heartily)
Reporter: You glad to be back, Mr. Kane?
Kane: I'm always glad to be back, young man. I'm an American. Always been an American. (Sharply) Anything else? When I was a reporter, we asked them quicker than that. Come on, young fella.
Reporter: What do you think of the chances for war in Europe?
Kane (smugly): I've talked with the responsible leaders of the Great Powers - England, France, Germany, and Italy - they're too intelligent to embark on a project which would mean the end of civilization as we now know it. You can take my word for it. There'll be no war.
In the next newsreel clip, Kane is seen at a cornerstone ceremony, clumsily dropping mortar on himself from a trowel, and then brushing the dirt off his coat. At the center of the ceremony as he lays a cornerstone, but without his customary power, he is surrounded by workmen swinging hooks and cables around him. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 1 | https://malibutimes.com/a-closer-examination-by-latest-speaker-what-factors-contribute-to-citizen-kanes-greatness | en | A closer examination by latest speaker: What factors contribute to 'Citizen Kane's' greatness? • The Malibu Times | [
"https://malibutimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Malibu-Times-Masthead-1946.png",
"https://malibutimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Malibu-Times-Masthead-1946.png",
"https://malibutimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Malibu-Times-Masthead-1946.png",
"https://malibutimes.com/wp-content/uploads... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Samantha Bravo"
] | 2023-03-17T15:00:00-07:00 | Malibu Library Speaker Series continues its installment with author and cultural historian Harlan Lebo For the second installment of the 2023 Library Speaker Series, community members were invited to hear Harlan Lebo, the author of “Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey,” a book about the making of one the most impactful films in cinema history. Despite […] | en | The Malibu Times | https://malibutimes.com/a-closer-examination-by-latest-speaker-what-factors-contribute-to-citizen-kanes-greatness | Malibu Library Speaker Series continues its installment with author and cultural historian Harlan Lebo
For the second installment of the 2023 Library Speaker Series, community members were invited to hear Harlan Lebo, the author of “Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey,” a book about the making of one the most impactful films in cinema history.
Despite the rain, film enthusiasts gathered at the Malibu Library on Feb. 28 to learn about the making of one of Hollywood’s greatest films, learn about the compelling tales of censorship, individual rights, creative freedom, and one of the most exciting chapters in Hollywood history.
The 1941 American drama film was directed, produced, and starred Orson Welles. The film was nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories and won Best Writing, Original Screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz, who also co-wrote the screenplay.
The picture was Welles’ first feature film. “Citizen Kane” is frequently cited as the greatest film ever made. For 50 consecutive years, it stood at number 1 in the British Film Institute’s Sight & Sound decennial poll of critics, and it topped the American Film Institute’s 100 Years…100 Movies list in 1998, as well as its 2007 update.
“‘Citizen Kane’ is one the most explored, analyzed movies ever made — there’s been books written like mine, there have been academic and theoretical studies done, but it is still a motion picture that is filled with mysteries,” Lebo said. “I think more people have decided to become filmmakers after seeing ‘Citizen Kane.’”
Lebo’s book, “Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey” is a movie lover’s history of the trials, tribulations, and triumphs behind the making of the film. The cinematography, editing, music, and social commentary are considered innovative and precedent-setting.
Lebo talks about set designs, transitioning, lighting, deep sets and realism.
“Deep sets don’t have to be big; even small fragments were created with depth and realism in mind,” Lebo said. “Simple small things that make a scene visually interesting and at the same time, much more realistic.”
In cinematography, deep focus keeps all elements of an image in sharp focus, simultaneously capturing key activities in the foreground and background.
“At the very least, deep sets are visually interesting. They look good, they seem real, but there’s more to it than that,” Lebo said. “A deep set allows for deep focus, and Welles could highlight several issues at the same time.”
On a technical level, Citizen Kane is important for the innovative lighting and focusing methods of its cinematographer, Gregg Toland, and the dramatic editing style of Robert Wise. It was Orson Welles’s debut as a film director, and it has been hailed by many critics as one of the greatest movies of all time.
“If you look at any movie from the ’30s and ’40s the action is from left to right, people talk, they move this way, and they don’t have a lot of creative freedom to move around,” Lebo said. “By extending the set back, the director Welles has much more creative freedom to move characters naturally, the way they normally do in life, through the scenes.”
While color films were barely introduced around the 1930s and ’40s, “Citizen Kane” was filmed in black and white. Lebo said they had a tight budget and couldn’t afford to use colored film.
“I hope that you can see the making of ‘Citizen Kane’ was one long exercise and a brilliant problem-solving film,” Lebo said. “And tonight we just began to touch on some of the elements that contributed to creating this cinematic film.”
Lebo has written books on other iconic films, including “The Godfather” and “Casablanca” and served as a historical consultant to Paramount Pictures for the 50th anniversary of the release of “Citizen Kane.” In addition, he writes about cultural history, science, the humanities, society, and the impact of digital technology.
The next Speakers Series segment is on Tuesday, March 21, at 7 p.m. and will feature Dr. Ian Jukes, the founder of the InfoSavvy Group, an international educational leadership consulting firm based in Canada. He has been a classroom teacher, teaching every grade from kindergarten to grade 12. He has written or co-written 27 books and education series. His most recent books include: “Literacy is Still Not Enough,” “Learner Voice, Learner Choice,” “LeaderShift 2020,” “A Brief History of the Future of Education,” and the award-winning “Reinventing Learning for the Always-On Generation.” | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 47 | https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/citizen-kane-revisited | en | ‘Citizen Kane’ Revisited | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=222292001502134&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/Baumann_1.jpg?itok=bqgRZY1x",
"https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_teaser/public/HD9AM6.jpg?itok=LoH46VeG",
"https://www... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Paul Baumann"
] | 2021-01-22T00:00:00 | ‘Mank,’ a new movie about the politics behind ‘Citizen Kane,’ focuses on Upton Sinclair—a friend of Commonweal’s founding editor. | en | /themes/custom/commonweal/favicon.ico | https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/citizen-kane-revisited | I had read quite a bit of praise for Mank, the new movie about the making of Citizen Kane, before watching it on Netflix. The story is about Herman J. Mankiewicz (played by Gary Oldman), who shared the Oscar for best screenplay with Orson Welles, the star, director, and force behind Citizen Kane (1941). “Mank” was Mankiewicz’s nickname. With its innovative cinematography, ever-shifting chronology, and playful use of newsreels, Citizen Kane is regarded by many as the best—or at least the most important—movie ever made in Hollywood. There had long been a dispute, now largely resolved, about whether it was Welles or Mankiewicz who deserved the bulk of the credit for it. Most scholars now agree that it was Welles who fundamentally shaped the film, although Mankiewicz’s contribution was real enough.
Directed by David Fincher and written by Fincher’s late father, Jack, Mank is shot in inky and shadowy black-and-white, which is intended, I suppose, to evoke the earlier film and the era when Welles and Mankiewicz battled over the script, but it often strained this viewer’s patience and eyesight. Mankiewicz was a notorious wit, a member of the fabled Algonquin Round Table. Jack Fincher does his best to give Oldman the barbed tongue of that classic romantic Hollywood figure: a brilliant writer who has sold his talent and soul to an industry dedicated to the bottom line. But Mank’s wit doesn’t quite come into full view. Or as the New Yorker’s Anthony Lane puts it, “The lines are funny, but not that funny, and it’s never easy to make us believe in someone of lofty comic repute.” In that regard, it doesn’t help that Mank is a dipsomaniac, whose verbal agility is as often derailed as fueled by booze.
Citizen Kane, of course, was a slightly veiled retelling of the life of William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper mogul. It is not a flattering portrait, and Hearst did everything in his power to block distribution of the film. He succeeded, at least at first. Mankiewicz and Hearst were well acquainted, even friends. In the film Mank thinks of himself as a conflicted tribune of the people, although he prefers the company of the wealthy and influential. He is also portrayed as being close to Marion Davies (played by Amanda Seyfried), the movie actress who was Hearst’s mistress. Hearst and Louis B. Mayer, head of MGM and Mankiewicz’s employer, were corporate titans determined to protect their economic interests and sabotage any progressive political movement during the Great Depression. The film proposes that Mankiewicz was embittered by their underhanded opposition to Upton Sinclair’s 1934 campaign for governor of California. (As it turns out, there is no historical basis for thinking Mankiewicz supported Sinclair). A famous muckraking journalist and author of The Jungle (1906), Sinclair had long been a dedicated socialist. Nevertheless, he managed to win the Democratic nomination for governor on a platform to “End Poverty in California” (EPIC), one that included raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy and establishing old-age pensions.
Sinclair had previously run unsuccessfully for governor and other offices in California as a Socialist Party candidate. Perhaps Sinclair’s most famous sentence reads: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Mayer produced “newsreels” denouncing Sinclair with actors pretending to be ordinary citizens. He required employees to “donate” a day’s pay to Sinclair’s Republican opponent. (James Cagney refused.) Hearst’s newspapers similarly distorted Sinclair’s record, calling him a Communist. In short, they practiced the sort of redbaiting that Republicans have long embraced in their effort to roll back the welfare state, practices that culminated in the election of Donald Trump. (If you think that claim is exaggerated, read Jill Lepore’s New Yorker article “The Lie Factory: How Politics Became a Business,” September 17, 2012.)
Sinclair was defeated handily, and it is the conceit of Mank that the disgruntled screenplay writer penned Citizen Kane to avenge Hearst and Meyer’s cynical and reactionary politics. Sinclair was a prolific author, publishing forty-seven books and winning the 1943 Pulitzer Prize for Dragon’s Teeth, a novel about Nazi Germany. Socialism was not his only cause. Like many of his contemporaries, Sinclair was also interested in spiritualism and various health fads. He used profits from The Jungle to establish the communal utopian experiment Helicon Hall in Englewood, New Jersey—across the Hudson from New York City. Among the commune’s residents was Michael Williams, the founding editor of Commonweal.
Williams, a much-published writer and former city editor of the San Francisco Examiner, had corresponded with Sinclair before the success of The Jungle and wrote to him expressing an interest in the Helicon enterprise. Sinclair invited him to see it for himself. The two became friends, and later put together a book proposal that failed to interest publishers. They subsequently spent time in Bermuda writing a book on nutrition and healthy living (Williams suffered from recurring bouts of tuberculosis). That project also failed, and Williams hints that Sinclair absconded with the advance.
Williams was never a socialist, but he was intrigued by, and sympathetic to, Sinclair’s countercultural social attitudes and his denunciations of economic inequality. In The Book of the High Romance: A Spiritual Autobiography, published in 1918, Williams takes a droll approach to his earlier enthusiasm for Helicon Hall. He describes it as “The House of Strange Souls” and enumerates its various participants and factions as “a mixed assemblage of socialists, ‘intellectual anarchists,’ single taxers, vegetarians, spiritualists, mental scientists, Free Lovers, suffragists, and other varieties of Ism-its.” Writers were thick on the ground, and Williams spent his brief time there toiling away on a variety of manuscripts, including a novel, for which he had high hopes.
Helicon Hall burned down in 1907 under suspicious circumstances, and the group of strange souls disbanded. Williams and his family escaped the fire, but he lost all his writings, including his novel. But he credited the intellectual tumult of “the colony” with helping to sharpen what was to become the philosophical question that would eventually compel him to return to the Catholicism he had abandoned at fourteen. “It was at Helicon Hall,” he writes, “that the problem with which so much of my life has been concerned—the problem, namely, of whether we are immortal souls or merely ephemeral products of a casual chemico-mechanical process, began to press upon me with an irresistible urgency.”
Pursuing an answer to that problem led Williams to organize the effort to establish a journal of opinion that would tackle the cultural and political questions of the day from a distinctively Catholic perspective. From its founding in 1924, Commonweal has not shied away from engaging the arguments of those who—like so many of Williams’s fellow residents of Helicon Hall—think the heritage and intellectual resources of Christianity are irrelevant in a post-Darwinian and technological age. Now, nearly a hundred years after its founding, and in light of the often-unimpeded march of a utilitarian materialism into every corner of human life, Commonweal increasingly seems like a utopian project of its own, but happily one built on a sturdier foundation than Helicon Hall. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 12 | https://culture.fandom.com/wiki/Citizen_Kane | en | Citizen Kane | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/culture/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20210713151654 | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/culture/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20210713151654 | [
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/culture/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20210713151654",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/6a181c72-e8bf-419b-b4db-18fd56a0eb60",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/6c42ce6a-b205-41f5-82c6-5011721932e7",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/464fc70a-5090-490b-b47... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Culture Wikia"
] | 2024-07-29T22:27:06+00:00 | Page Module:Infobox/styles.css has no content. Citizen Kane is a 1941 American mystery drama film by Orson Welles, its producer, co-screenwriter, director and star. The picture was Welles's first feature film. Nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories, it won an Academy Award for Best... | en | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/culture/images/4/4a/Site-favicon.ico/revision/latest?cb=20210713151656 | Culture Wikia | https://culture.fandom.com/wiki/Citizen_Kane | Page Module:Infobox/styles.css has no content.
Citizen KanePoster showing two women in the bottom left of the picture looking up towards a man in a white suit in the top right of the picture. "Everybody's talking about it. It's terrific!" appears in the top right of the picture. "Orson Welles" appears in block letters between the women and the man in the white suit. "Citizen Kane" appears in red and yellow block letters tipped 60° to the right. The remaining credits are listed in fine print in the bottom right.Directed byOrson WellesScreenplay by
Herman J. Mankiewicz
Orson Welles
Produced byOrson WellesStarring
Orson Welles
Joseph Cotten
Dorothy Comingore
Everett Sloane
Ray Collins
George Coulouris
Agnes Moorehead
Paul Stewart
Ruth Warrick
Erskine Sanford
William Alland
CinematographyGregg TolandEdited byRobert WiseMusic byBernard Herrmann
Production
company
Mercury Productions
Distributed byRKO Radio Pictures
Release date
May 1, 1941 ( ) (Palace Theatre)
September 5, 1941 ( ) (United States)
Running time
119 minutes[1]CountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishBudget$839,727[2]Box office$1.6 million[3]
Citizen Kane is a 1941 American mystery drama film by Orson Welles, its producer, co-screenwriter, director and star. The picture was Welles's first feature film. Nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories, it won an Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles. Considered by many critics, filmmakers, and fans to be the greatest film of all time, Citizen Kane was voted as such in five consecutive British Film Institute Sight & Sound polls of critics, until it was displaced by Vertigo in the 2012 poll. It topped the American Film Institute's 100 Years ... 100 Movies list in 1998, as well as its 2007 update. Citizen Kane is particularly praised for its cinematography, music, and narrative structure, which have been considered innovative and precedent-setting.
The quasi-biographical film examines the life and legacy of Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles, a character based in part upon the American newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, Chicago tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick, and aspects of Welles's own life. Upon its release, Hearst prohibited mention of the film in any of his newspapers. Kane's career in the publishing world is born of idealistic social service, but gradually evolves into a ruthless pursuit of power. Narrated principally through flashbacks, the story is told through the research of a newsreel reporter seeking to solve the mystery of the newspaper magnate's dying word: "Rosebud."
After the Broadway successes of Welles's Mercury Theatre and the controversial 1938 radio broadcast "The War of the Worlds" on The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was courted by Hollywood. He signed a contract with RKO Pictures in 1939. Unusually for an untried director, he was given the freedom to develop his own story, to use his own cast and crew, and to have final cut privilege. Following two abortive attempts to get a project off the ground, he wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane, collaborating on the effort with Herman Mankiewicz. Principal photography took place in 1940 and the film received its American release in 1941.
While a critical success, Citizen Kane failed to recoup its costs at the box office. The film faded from view after its release but was subsequently returned to the public's attention when it was praised by such French critics as André Bazin and given an American revival in 1956. The film was released on Blu-ray on September 13, 2011, for a special 70th anniversary edition.
Page Template:TOC limit/styles.css has no content.
Plot[]
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
In a mansion in Xanadu, a vast palatial estate in Florida, the elderly Charles Foster Kane is on his deathbed. Holding a snow globe, he utters a word, "Rosebud", and dies; the globe slips from his hand and smashes on the floor. A newsreel obituary tells the life story of Kane, an enormously wealthy newspaper publisher. Kane's death becomes sensational news around the world, and the newsreel's producer tasks reporter Jerry Thompson with discovering the meaning of "Rosebud".
Thompson sets out to interview Kane's friends and associates. He approaches Kane's second wife, Susan Alexander Kane, now an alcoholic who runs her own nightclub, but she refuses to talk to him. Thompson goes to the private archive of the late banker Walter Parks Thatcher. Through Thatcher's written memoirs, Thompson learns that Kane's childhood began in poverty in Colorado.
In 1871, after a gold mine was discovered on her property, Kane's mother Mary Kane sends Charles away to live with Thatcher so that he would be properly educated. While Thatcher and Charles' parents discuss arrangements inside, the young Kane plays happily with a sled in the snow outside his parents' boarding-house and protests being sent to live with Thatcher.
Years later, after gaining full control over his trust fund at the age of 25, Kane enters the newspaper business and embarks on a career of yellow journalism. He takes control of the New York Inquirer and starts publishing scandalous articles that attack Thatcher's business interests. After the stock market crash in 1929, Kane is forced to sell controlling interest of his newspaper empire to Thatcher.
Back in the present, Thompson interviews Kane's personal business manager, Mr. Bernstein. Bernstein recalls how Kane hired the best journalists available to build the Inquirer's circulation. Kane rose to power by successfully manipulating public opinion regarding the Spanish–American War and marrying Emily Norton, the niece of a President of the United States.
Thompson interviews Kane's estranged best friend, Jedediah Leland, in a retirement home. Leland recalls how Kane's marriage to Emily disintegrates more and more over the years, and he begins an affair with amateur singer Susan Alexander while he is running for Governor of New York. Both his wife and his political opponent discover the affair and the public scandal ends his political career. Kane marries Susan and forces her into a humiliating operatic career for which she has neither the talent nor the ambition.
Back in the present, Susan now consents to an interview with Thompson, and recalls her failed opera career. Kane finally allows her to abandon her singing career after she attempts suicide. After years spent dominated by Kane and living in isolation at Xanadu, Susan leaves Kane. Kane's butler Raymond recounts that, after Susan leaves him, Kane begins violently destroying the contents of her bedroom. He suddenly calms down when he sees a snow globe and says, "Rosebud."
Back at Xanadu, Kane's belongings are being cataloged or discarded. Thompson concludes that he is unable to solve the mystery and that the meaning of Kane's last word will forever remain an enigma. As the film ends, the camera reveals that "Rosebud" is the trade name of the sled on which the eight-year-old Kane was playing on the day that he was taken from his home in Colorado. Thought to be junk by Xanadu's staff, the sled is burned in a furnace.
Cast[]
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
The beginning of the film's ending credits state that "Most of the principal actors in Citizen Kane are new to motion pictures. The Mercury Theatre is proud to introduce them."[4] The cast is listed in the following order:
Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland, Kane's best friend and a reporter for The Inquirer. Cotten also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[5]
Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane, Kane's mistress and second wife.[5]
Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane, Kane's mother.[5]
Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane, Kane's first wife.[5]
Ray Collins as Jim W. Gettys, Kane's political rival and the incumbent governor of New York.[5]
Erskine Sanford as Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer. Sanford also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[5]
Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein, Kane's friend and employee at The Inquirer.[5]
William Alland as Jerry Thompson, a reporter for News on the March. Alland also voices the narrator of the News on the March newsreel.[5]
Paul Stewart as Raymond, Kane's butler.[5]
George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker who becomes Kane's legal guardian.[5]
Fortunio Bonanova as Signor Matiste, vocal coach of Susan Alexander Kane.[5]
Gus Schilling as John, headwaiter at the El Rancho nightclub. Schilling also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[5]
Philip Van Zandt as Mr. Rawlston, News on the March producer.[5]
Georgia Backus as Bertha Anderson, attendant at the library of Walter Parks Thatcher.[5]
Harry Shannon as Jim Kane, Kane's father.[5]
Sonny Bupp as Charles Foster Kane III, Kane's son.[5]
Buddy Swan as Charles Foster Kane, age eight.[5]
Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper publisher.[5]
Additionally, Charles Bennett appears as the entertainer at the head of the chorus line in the Inquirer party sequence,[6]:40–41 and cinematographer Gregg Toland makes a cameo appearance as an interviewer depicted in part of the News on the March newsreel. Actor Alan Ladd makes a cameo appearance as a reporter smoking a pipe at the end of the film.[7]
Pre-production[]
Development[]
Hollywood had shown interest in Welles as early as 1936.[8]:40 He turned down three scripts sent to him by Warner Bros. In 1937, he declined offers from David O. Selznick, who asked him to head his film company's story department, and William Wyler, who wanted him for a supporting role in Wuthering Heights. "Although the possibility of making huge amounts of money in Hollywood greatly attracted him," wrote biographer Frank Brady, "he was still totally, hopelessly, insanely in love with the theater, and it is there that he had every intention of remaining to make his mark."[9]:118–119, 130
Following "The War of the Worlds" broadcast of his CBS radio series The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was lured to Hollywood with a remarkable contract.[10]:1–2, 153 RKO Pictures studio head George J. Schaefer wanted to work with Welles after the notorious broadcast, believing that Welles had a gift for attracting mass attention.[11]:170 RKO was also uncharacteristically profitable and was entering into a series of independent production contracts that would add more artistically prestigious films to its roster.[10]:1–2, 153 Throughout the spring and early summer of 1939, Schaefer constantly tried to lure the reluctant Welles to Hollywood.[11]:170 Welles was in financial trouble after failure of his plays Five Kings and The Green Goddess. At first he simply wanted to spend three months in Hollywood and earn enough money to pay his debts and fund his next theatrical season.[11]:170 Welles first arrived on July 20, 1939[11]:168 and on his first tour, he called the movie studio "the greatest electric train set a boy ever had".[11]:174
Welles signed his contract with RKO on August 21. This legendary contract stipulated that Welles would act in, direct, produce and write two films. Mercury would get $100,000 for the first film by January 1, 1940, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000, and $125,000 for a second film by January 1, 1941, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000. The most controversial aspect of the contract was granting Welles complete artistic control of the two films so long as RKO approved both project's stories[11]:169 and so long as the budget did not exceed $500,000.[10]:1–2, 153 RKO executives would not be allowed to see any footage until Welles chose to show it to them, and no cuts could be made to either film without Welles's approval.[11]:169 Welles was allowed to develop the story without interference, select his own cast and crew, and have the right of final cut. Granting final cut privilege was unprecedented for a studio since it placed artistic considerations over financial investment. The contract was deeply resented in the film industry, and the Hollywood press took every opportunity to mock RKO and Welles. Schaefer remained a great supporter[10]:1–2, 153 and saw the unprecedented contract as good publicity.[11]:170 Film scholar Robert L. Carringer wrote: "The simple fact seems to be that Schaefer believed Welles was going to pull off something really big almost as much as Welles did himself."[10]:1–2, 153
Welles spent the first five months of his RKO contract trying to get his first project going, without success. "They are laying bets over on the RKO lot that the Orson Welles deal will end up without Orson ever doing a picture there," wrote The Hollywood Reporter.[10]:15 It was agreed that Welles would film Heart of Darkness, previously adapted for The Mercury Theatre on the Air, which would be presented entirely through a first-person camera. After elaborate pre-production and a day of test shooting with a hand-held camera—unheard of at the time—the project never reached production because Welles was unable to trim $50,000 from its budget.[lower-alpha 1][lower-alpha 2][12]:30–31 Schaefer told Welles that the $500,000 budget could not be exceeded; revenue was declining sharply in Europe by the fall of 1939.[9]:215–216
He then started work on the idea that became Citizen Kane. Knowing the script would take time to prepare, Welles suggested to RKO that while that was being done—"so the year wouldn't be lost"—he make a humorous political thriller. Welles proposed The Smiler with a Knife, from a novel by Cecil Day-Lewis.[12]:33–34 When that project stalled in December 1939, Welles began brainstorming other story ideas with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who had been writing Mercury radio scripts. "Arguing, inventing, discarding, these two powerful, headstrong, dazzlingly articulate personalities thrashed toward Kane", wrote biographer Richard Meryman.[13]:245–246
Screenplay[]
Main article: Screenplay for Citizen Kane
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
One of the long-standing controversies about Citizen Kane has been the authorship of the screenplay.[13]:237 Welles conceived the project with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who was writing radio plays for Welles's CBS Radio series, The Campbell Playhouse.[10]:16 Mankiewicz based the original outline on the life of William Randolph Hearst, whom he knew socially and came to hate after being exiled from Hearst's circle.[13]:231
In February 1940 Welles supplied Mankiewicz with 300 pages of notes and put him under contract to write the first draft screenplay under the supervision of John Houseman, Welles's former partner in the Mercury Theatre. Welles later explained, "I left him on his own finally, because we'd started to waste too much time haggling. So, after mutual agreements on storyline and character, Mank went off with Houseman and did his version, while I stayed in Hollywood and wrote mine."[12]:54 Taking these drafts, Welles drastically condensed and rearranged them, then added scenes of his own. The industry accused Welles of underplaying Mankiewicz's contribution to the script, but Welles countered the attacks by saying, "At the end, naturally, I was the one making the picture, after all—who had to make the decisions. I used what I wanted of Mank's and, rightly or wrongly, kept what I liked of my own."[12]:54
The terms of the contract stated that Mankiewicz was to receive no credit for his work, as he was hired as a script doctor.[14]:487 Before he signed the contract Mankiewicz was particularly advised by his agents that all credit for his work belonged to Welles and the Mercury Theatre, the "author and creator".[9]:236–237 As the film neared release, however, Mankiewicz began threatening Welles to get credit for the film—including threats to place full-page ads in trade papers and to get his friend Ben Hecht to write an exposé for The Saturday Evening Post. Mankiewicz also threatened to go to the Screen Writers Guild and claim full credit for writing the entire script by himself.[11]:204
After lodging a protest with the Screen Writers Guild, Mankiewicz withdrew it, then vacillated. The question was resolved in January 1941 when the studio, RKO Pictures, awarded Mankiewicz credit. The guild credit form listed Welles first, Mankiewicz second. Welles's assistant Richard Wilson said that the person who circled Mankiewicz's name in pencil, then drew an arrow that put it in first place, was Welles. The official credit reads, "Screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles".[13]:264–265 Mankiewicz's rancor toward Welles grew over the remaining 12 years of his life.[15]:498
Questions over the authorship of the Citizen Kane screenplay were revived in 1971 by influential film critic Pauline Kael, whose controversial 50,000-word essay "Raising Kane" was commissioned as an introduction to the shooting script in The Citizen Kane Book,[12]:494 published in October 1971.[16] The book-length essay first appeared in February 1971, in two consecutive issues of The New Yorker magazine.[12]:494[17] In the ensuing controversy Welles was defended by colleagues, critics, biographers and scholars, but his reputation was damaged by its charges.[15]:394 The essay was later discredited and Kael's own scholarship was called into question.[18][19][20]
Any question of authorship was resolved with Carringer's 1978 essay, "The Scripts of Citizen Kane".[21][lower-alpha 3] Carringer studied the collection of script records—"almost a day-to-day record of the history of the scripting"—that was then still intact at RKO. He reviewed all seven drafts and concluded that "the full evidence reveals that Welles's contribution to the Citizen Kane script was not only substantial but definitive."[21]:80
Sources[]
Main article: Sources for Citizen Kane
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
Welles never confirmed a principal source for the character of Charles Foster Kane. Houseman wrote that Kane is a synthesis of different personalities, with Hearst's life used as the main source. Some events and details were invented,[23]:444 and Houseman and Mankiewicz also "grafted anecdotes from other giants of journalism, including Pulitzer, Northcliffe and Mank's first boss, Herbert Bayard Swope."[23]:444 Welles said, "Mr. Hearst was quite a bit like Kane, although Kane isn't really founded on Hearst in particular, many people sat for it so to speak".[24]:78 He specifically acknowledged that aspects of Kane were drawn from the lives of two business tycoons familiar from his youth in Chicago—Samuel Insull and Harold Fowler McCormick.[lower-alpha 4][12]:49
The character of Jedediah Leland was based on drama critic Ashton Stevens, George Stevens's uncle and Welles's close boyhood friend.[12]:66 Some detail came from Mankiewicz's own experience as a drama critic in New York.[13]:77–78
The assumption that the character of Susan Alexander Kane was based on Marion Davies was a major reason Hearst tried to destroy Citizen Kane.[25][lower-alpha 5] Welles denied that the character was based on Davies,[27] whom he called "an extraordinary woman—nothing like the character Dorothy Comingore played in the movie."[12]:49 He cited Insull's building of the Chicago Opera House, and McCormick's lavish promotion of the opera career of his second wife, Ganna Walska, as direct influences on the screenplay.[12]:49
The character of political boss Jim W. Gettys is based on Charles F. Murphy, a leader in New York City's infamous Tammany Hall political machine.[17]:61
Welles credited "Rosebud" to Mankiewicz.[12]:53 Biographer Richard Meryman wrote that the symbol of Mankiewicz's own damaged childhood was a treasured bicycle, stolen while he visited the public library and not replaced by his family as punishment. He regarded it as the prototype of Charles Foster Kane's sled.[13]:300 In his 2015 Welles biography, Patrick McGilligan reported that Mankiewicz himself stated that the word "Rosebud" was taken from the name of a famous racehorse, Old Rosebud. Mankiewicz had a bet on the horse in the 1914 Kentucky Derby, which he won, and McGilligan wrote that "Old Rosebud symbolized his lost youth, and the break with his family". In testimony for the Lundberg suit, Mankiewicz said, "I had undergone psycho-analysis, and Rosebud, under circumstances slightly resembling the circumstances in [Citizen Kane], played a prominent part."[28] Other modern claims that the term was a nickname Hearst used for Davies' clitoris were rejected by Houseman[29] and dismissed by Brady.[9]:287
The News on the March sequence that begins the film satirizes the journalistic style of The March of Time, the news documentary and dramatization series presented in movie theaters by Time Inc.[30][31] From 1935 to 1938[32]:47 Welles was a member of the uncredited company of actors that presented the original radio version.[33]:77
Houseman claimed that banker Walter P. Thatcher was loosely based on J. P. Morgan.[34]:55 Bernstein was named for Dr. Maurice Bernstein, appointed Welles's guardian;[12]:65–66 Sloane's portrayal was said to be based on Bernard Herrmann.[35] Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer, was named for actor Jack Carter.[36]:155
Production[]
Casting[]
Citizen Kane was a rare film in that its principal roles were played by actors new to motion pictures. Ten were billed as Mercury Actors, members of the skilled repertory company assembled by Welles for the stage and radio performances of the Mercury Theatre, an independent theater company he founded with Houseman in 1937.[9]:119–120[37] "He loved to use the Mercury players," wrote biographer Charles Higham, "and consequently he launched several of them on movie careers."[36]:155
The film represents the feature film debuts of William Alland, Ray Collins, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane, Paul Stewart, and Welles himself.[5] Despite never having appeared in feature films, some of the cast members were already well known to the public. Cotten had recently become a Broadway star in the hit play The Philadelphia Story with Katharine Hepburn[11]:187 and Sloane was well known for his role on the radio show The Goldbergs.[11]:187 [lower-alpha 6] Mercury actor George Coulouris was a star of the stage in New York and London.[37]
Not all of the cast came from the Mercury Players. Welles cast Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane. Comingore had never appeared in a film and was a discovery of Charlie Chaplin.[11]:188 Chaplin recommended Comingore to Welles,[38]:170 who then met Comingore at a party in Los Angeles and immediately cast her.[39]:44
Welles had met stage actress Ruth Warrick while visiting New York on a break from Hollywood and remembered her as a good fit for Emily Norton Kane,[11]:188 later saying that she looked the part.[38]:169 Warrick told Carringer that she was struck by the extraordinary resemblance between herself and Welles's mother when she saw a photograph of Beatrice Ives Welles. She characterized her own personal relationship with Welles as motherly.[40]:14
"He trained us for films at the same time that he was training himself," recalled Agnes Moorehead. "Orson believed in good acting, and he realized that rehearsals were needed to get the most from his actors. That was something new in Hollywood: nobody seemed interested in bringing in a group to rehearse before scenes were shot. But Orson knew it was necessary, and we rehearsed every sequence before it was shot."[41]:9
When The March of Time narrator Westbrook Van Voorhis asked for $25,000 to narrate the News on the March sequence, Alland demonstrated his ability to imitate Van Voorhis and Welles cast him.[42]
Welles later said that casting character actor Gino Corrado in the small part of the waiter at the El Rancho broke his heart. Corrado had appeared in many Hollywood films, often as a waiter, and Welles wanted all of the actors to be new to films.[38]:171
Other uncredited roles went to Thomas A. Curran as Teddy Roosevelt in the faux newsreel; Richard Baer as Hillman, a man at Madison Square Garden, and a man in the News on the March screening room; and Alan Ladd, Arthur O'Connell and Louise Currie as reporters at Xanadu.[5]
When Kathryn Trosper Popper died on March 6, 2016, at the age of 100 she was reported to be the last surviving actor to appear in Citizen Kane.[43] Jean Forward, a soprano who dubbed the singing voice of Susan Alexander, was the last surviving performer from the film before her death in 2016.[44] Warrick was the last surviving member of the principal cast at the time of her death in 2005. Sonny Bupp, who played Kane's young son, was the last surviving credited cast member of Citizen Kane when he died in 2007.[45]
Filming[]
Production advisor Miriam Geiger quickly compiled a handmade film textbook for Welles, a practical reference book of film techniques that he studied carefully. He then taught himself filmmaking by matching its visual vocabulary to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which he ordered from the Museum of Modern Art,[11]:173 and films by Frank Capra, René Clair, Fritz Lang, King Vidor[46]:1172:1171 and Jean Renoir.[9]:209 The one film he genuinely studied was John Ford's Stagecoach,[12]:29 which he watched 40 times.[47] "As it turned out, the first day I ever walked onto a set was my first day as a director," Welles said. "I'd learned whatever I knew in the projection room—from Ford. After dinner every night for about a month, I'd run Stagecoach, often with some different technician or department head from the studio, and ask questions. 'How was this done?' 'Why was this done?' It was like going to school."[12]:29
Welles's cinematographer for the film was Gregg Toland, described by Welles as "just then, the number-one cameraman in the world." To Welles's astonishment, Toland visited him at his office and said, "I want you to use me on your picture." He had seen some of the Mercury stage productions (including Caesar[15]:66) and said he wanted to work with someone who had never made a movie.[12]:59 RKO hired Toland on loan from Samuel Goldwyn Productions[34]:10 in the first week of June 1940.[10]:40
"And he never tried to impress us that he was doing any miracles," Welles recalled. "I was calling for things only a beginner would have been ignorant enough to think anybody could ever do, and there he was, doing them."[12]:60 Toland later explained that he wanted to work with Welles because he anticipated the first time director's inexperience and reputation for audacious experimentation in the theater would allow the cinematographer to try new and innovative camera techniques that typical Hollywood films would never have allowed him to do.[11]:186 Unaware of filmmaking protocol, Welles adjusted the lights on set as he was accustomed to doing in the theater; Toland quietly re-balanced them, and was angry when one of the crew informed Welles that he was infringing on Toland's responsibilities.[48]:5:33–6:06 During the first few weeks of June, Welles had lengthy discussions about the film with Toland and art director Perry Ferguson in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening he worked with actors and revised the script.[10]:69
On June 29, 1940—a Saturday morning when few inquisitive studio executives would be around—Welles began filming Citizen Kane.[10]:69[15]:107 After the disappointment of having Heart of Darkness cancelled,[12]:30–31 Welles followed Ferguson's suggestion[lower-alpha 7][12]:57 and deceived RKO into believing that he was simply shooting camera tests. "But we were shooting the picture," Welles said, "because we wanted to get started and be already into it before anybody knew about it."[12]:57
At the time RKO executives were pressuring him to agree to direct a film called The Men from Mars, to capitalize on "The War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. Welles said that he would consider making the project but wanted to make a different film first. At this time he did not inform them that he had already begun filming Citizen Kane.[11]:186
The early footage was called "Orson Welles Tests" on all paperwork.[10]:69 The first "test" shot was the News on the March projection room scene, economically filmed in a real studio projection room in darkness that masked many actors who appeared in other roles later in the film.[10]:69[12]:77–78[lower-alpha 8] "At $809 Orson did run substantially beyond the test budget of $528—to create one of the most famous scenes in movie history," wrote Barton Whaley.[15]:107
The next scenes were the El Rancho nightclub scenes and the scene in which Susan attempts suicide.[lower-alpha 9][10]:69 Welles later said that the nightclub set was available after another film had wrapped and that filming took 10 to 12 days to complete. For these scenes Welles had Comingore's throat sprayed with chemicals to give her voice a harsh, raspy tone.[38]:170–171 Other scenes shot in secret included those in which Thompson interviews Leland and Bernstein, which were also shot on sets built for other films.[42]
During production, the film was referred to as RKO 281. Most of the filming took place in what is now Stage 19 on the Paramount Pictures lot in Hollywood.[50] There was some location filming at Balboa Park in San Diego and the San Diego Zoo.[51]
In the end of July, RKO approved the film and Welles was allowed to officially begin shooting, despite having already been filming "tests" for several weeks. Welles leaked stories to newspaper reporters that the tests had been so good that there was no need to re-shoot them. The first official scene to be shot was the breakfast montage sequence between Kane and his first wife Emily. To strategically save money and appease the RKO executives who opposed him, Welles rehearsed scenes extensively before actually shooting and filmed very few takes of each shot set-up.[11]:193 Welles never shot master shots for any scene after Toland told him that Ford never shot them.[38]:169 To appease the increasingly curious press, Welles threw a cocktail party for selected reporters, promising that they could watch a scene being filmed. When the journalists arrived Welles told them they had "just finished" shooting for the day but still had the party.[11]:193 Welles told the press that he was ahead of schedule (without factoring in the month of "test shooting"), thus discrediting claims that after a year in Hollywood without making a film he was a failure in the film industry.[11]:194
Welles usually worked 16 to 18 hours a day on the film. He often began work at 4 a.m. since the special effects make-up used to age him for certain scenes took up to four hours to apply. Welles used this time to discuss the day's shooting with Toland and other crew members. The special contact lenses used to make Welles look elderly proved very painful, and a doctor was employed to place them into Welles's eyes. Welles had difficulty seeing clearly while wearing them, which caused him to badly cut his wrist when shooting the scene in which Kane breaks up the furniture in Susan's bedroom. While shooting the scene in which Kane shouts at Gettys on the stairs of Susan Alexander's apartment building, Welles fell ten feet; an X-ray revealed two bone chips in his ankle.[11]:194 The injury required him to direct the film from a wheelchair for two weeks.[11]:194–195 He eventually wore a steel brace to resume performing on camera; it is visible in the low-angle scene between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election.[lower-alpha 10][12]:61 For the final scene, a stage at the Selznick studio was equipped with a working furnace, and multiple takes were required to show the sled being put into the fire and the word "Rosebud" consumed. Paul Stewart recalled that on the ninth take the Culver City Fire Department arrived in full gear because the furnace had grown so hot the flue caught fire. "Orson was delighted with the commotion", he said.[41]:8–9
When "Rosebud" was burned, Welles choreographed the scene while he had composer Bernard Herrmann's cue playing on the set.[52]
Unlike Schaefer, many members of RKO's board of governors did not like Welles or the control that his contract gave him.[11]:186 However such board members as Nelson Rockefeller and NBC chief David Sarnoff[46]:1170 were sympathetic to Welles.[53] Throughout production Welles had problems with these executives not respecting his contract's stipulation of non-interference and several spies arrived on set to report what they saw to the executives. When the executives would sometimes arrive on set unannounced the entire cast and crew would suddenly start playing softball until they left. Before official shooting began the executives intercepted all copies of the script and delayed their delivery to Welles. They had one copy sent to their office in New York, resulting in it being leaked to press.[11]:195
Principal shooting wrapped October 24. Welles then took several weeks off of the film for a lecture tour, during which he also scouted additional locations with Toland and Ferguson. Filming resumed November 15[10]:87 with some re-shoots. Toland had to leave due to a commitment to shoot Howard Hughes' The Outlaw, but Toland's camera crew continued working on the film and Toland was replaced by RKO cinematographer Harry J. Wild. The final day of shooting on November 30 was Kane's death scene.[10]:85 Welles boasted that he only went 21 days over his official shooting schedule, without factoring in the month of "camera tests."[11]:195 According to RKO records, the film cost $839,727. Its estimated budget had been $723,800.[5]
Post-production[]
Citizen Kane was edited by Robert Wise and assistant editor Mark Robson.[34]:85 Both would become successful film directors. Wise was hired after Welles finished shooting the "camera tests" and began officially making the film. Wise said that Welles "had an older editor assigned to him for those tests and evidently he was not too happy and asked to have somebody else. I was roughly Orson's age and had several good credits." Wise and Robson began editing the film while it was still shooting and said that they "could tell certainly that we were getting something very special. It was outstanding film day in and day out."[46]:1210 Welles gave Wise detailed instructions and was usually not present during the film's editing.[10]:109 The film was very well planned out and intentionally shot for such post-production techniques as slow dissolves.[42] The lack of coverage made editing easy since Welles and Toland edited the film "in camera" by leaving few options of how it could be put together.[10]:110 Wise said the breakfast table sequence took weeks to edit and get the correct "timing" and "rhythm" for the whip pans and over-lapping dialogue.[42] The News on the March sequence was edited by RKO's newsreel division to give it authenticity.[10]:110 They used stock footage from Pathé News and the General Film Library.[5]
During post-production Welles and special effects artist Linwood G. Dunn experimented with an optical printer to improve certain scenes that Welles found unsatisfactory from the footage.[42] Whereas Welles was often immediately pleased with Wise's work, he would require Dunn and post-production audio engineer James G. Stewart to re-do their work several times until he was satisfied.[10]:109
Welles hired Bernard Herrmann to compose the film's score. Where most Hollywood film scores were written quickly, in as few as two or three weeks after filming was completed, Herrmann was given 12 weeks to write the music. He had sufficient time to do his own orchestrations and conducting, and worked on the film reel by reel as it was shot and cut. He wrote complete musical pieces for some of the montages, and Welles edited many of the scenes to match their length.[54]
Trailer[]
Main article: Citizen Kane trailer
Written and directed by Welles at Toland's suggestion, the theatrical trailer for Citizen Kane differs from other trailers in that it did not feature a single second of footage of the actual film itself, but acts as a wholly original, tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-documentary piece on the film's production.[38]:230 Filmed at the same time as Citizen Kane itself, it offers the only existing behind-the-scenes footage of the film. The trailer, shot by Harry J. Wild instead of Toland, follows an unseen Welles as he provides narration for a tour around the film set, introductions to the film's core cast members, and a brief overview of Kane's character.[12]:360 The trailer also contains a number of trick shots, including one of Everett Sloane appearing at first to be running into the camera, which turns out to be the reflection of the camera in a mirror.[55]
At the time, it was almost unprecedented for a film trailer to not actually feature anything of the film itself; and while Citizen Kane is frequently cited as a ground-breaking, influential film, Simon Callow argues its trailer was no less original in its approach. Callow writes that it has "great playful charm ... it is a miniature documentary, almost an introduction to the cinema ... Teasing, charming, completely original, it is a sort of conjuring trick: without his face appearing once on the screen, Welles entirely dominates its five [sic] minutes' duration."[14]:558–9
Style[]
Film scholars and historians view Citizen Kane as Welles's attempt to create a new style of filmmaking by studying various forms of film making, and combining them all into one. However, Welles stated that his love for cinema began only when he started the work on the film. When asked where he got the confidence as a first-time director to direct a film so radically different from contemporary cinema, he responded, "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance—you know there's no confidence to equal it. It's only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you're timid or careful."[24]:80
David Bordwell wrote that "The best way to understand Citizen Kane is to stop worshiping it as a triumph of technique." Bordwell argues that the film did not invent any of its famous techniques such as deep focus cinematography, shots of the ceilings, chiaroscuro lighting and temporal jump-cuts, and many of these stylistics had been used in German Expressionist films of the 1920s, such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. But Bordwell asserts that the film did put them all together for the first time and perfected the medium in one single film.[46]:1171 In a 1948 interview D. W. Griffith said "I loved Citizen Kane and particularly loved the ideas he took from me."[56]
Arguments against the film's cinematic innovations were made as early as 1946 when French historian Georges Sadoul wrote that "the film is an encyclopedia of old techniques." Sadoul pointed out such examples as compositions that used both the foreground and the background in the films of Auguste and Louis Lumière, special effects used in the films of Georges Méliès, shots of the ceiling in Erich von Stroheim's Greed and newsreel montages in the films of Dziga Vertov.[57]
French film critic André Bazin defended the film and wrote that "In this respect, the accusation of plagiarism could very well be extended to the film's use of panchromatic film or its exploitation of the properties of gelatinous silver halide." Bazin disagreed with Sadoul's comparison to Lumière's cinematography since Citizen Kane used more sophisticated lenses,[58]:232 but acknowledged that the film had similarities to such previous works as The 49th Parallel and The Power and the Glory. Bazin stated that "even if Welles did not invent the cinematic devices employed in Citizen Kane, one should nevertheless credit him with the invention of their meaning."[58]:233 Bazin championed the techniques in the film for its depiction of heightened reality, but Bordwell believes that the film's use of special effects contradict some of Bazin's theories.[59]:75
Storytelling techniques[]
Citizen Kane eschews the traditional linear, chronological narrative, and tells Kane's story entirely in flashback using different points of view, many of them from Kane's aged and forgetful associates, the cinematic equivalent of the unreliable narrator in literature.[60]:83 Welles also dispenses with the idea of a single storyteller and uses multiple narrators to recount Kane's life. The use of multiple narrators was unheard of in Hollywood films.[60]:81 Each narrator recounts a different part of Kane's life, with each story partly overlapping.[61] The film depicts Kane as an enigma, a complicated man who, in the end, leaves viewers with more questions than answers as to his character, such as the newsreel footage where he is attacked for being both a communist and a fascist.[60]:82–84
The technique of using flashbacks had been used in earlier films—most notably in The Power and the Glory (1933)[62]—but no film was as immersed in this technique as Citizen Kane. The use of the reporter Thompson acts as a surrogate for the audience, questioning Kane's associates and piecing together his life.[61]
At that time films typically had an "omniscient perspective", which Marilyn Fabe says give the audience the "illusion that we are looking with impunity into a world which is unaware of our gaze, Hollywood movies give us a feeling of power." The film begins in this fashion up until the News on the March sequence, after which we the audience see the film through the perspectives of others.[60]:81 The News on the March sequence gives an overview of Kane's entire life (and the film's entire story) at the beginning of the film, leaving the audience without the typical suspense of wondering how it will end. Instead the film's repetitions of events compels the audience to analyze and wonder why Kane's life happened the way that it did, under the pretext of finding out what "Rosebud" means. The film then returns to the omniscient perspective in the final scene, when only the audience discovers what "Rosebud" is.[60]:82–83
Cinematography[]
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
The most innovative technical aspect of Citizen Kane is the extended use of deep focus.[63] In nearly every scene in the film, the foreground, background and everything in between are all in sharp focus. Cinematographer Toland did this through his experimentation with lenses and lighting. Toland described the achievement, made possible by the sensitivity of modern speed film, in an article for Theatre Arts magazine:
New developments in the science of motion picture photography are not abundant at this advanced stage of the game but periodically one is perfected to make this a greater art. Of these I am in an excellent position to discuss what is termed "Pan-focus", as I have been active for two years in its development and used it for the first time in Citizen Kane. Through its use, it is possible to photograph action from a range of eighteen inches from the camera lens to over two hundred feet away, with extreme foreground and background figures and action both recorded in sharp relief. Hitherto, the camera had to be focused either for a close or a distant shot, all efforts to encompass both at the same time resulting in one or the other being out of focus. This handicap necessitated the breaking up of a scene into long and short angles, with much consequent loss of realism. With pan-focus, the camera, like the human eye, sees an entire panorama at once, with everything clear and lifelike.[64]
Both this article and a May 1941 Life magazine article with illustrated examples[65] helped popularize deep focus cinematography and Toland's achievements on the film.[59]:73
Another unorthodox method used in the film was the way low-angle shots were used to display a point of view facing upwards, thus allowing ceilings to be shown in the background of several scenes. Breaking with studio convention, every set was built with a ceiling[64]—many constructed of fabric that ingeniously concealed microphones.[66] Welles felt that the camera should show what the eyes see, and that it was a bad theatrical convention to pretend there was no ceiling—"a big lie in order to get all those terrible lights up there," he said. He became fascinated with the look of low angles, which made even dull interiors look interesting. One extremely low angle is used to photograph the encounter between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election. A hole was dug for the camera, which required drilling into the concrete floor.[12]:61–62
Welles credited Toland on the same title card as himself and said "It's impossible to say how much I owe to Gregg. He was superb."[12]:59[lower-alpha 11][lower-alpha 12] He called Toland "the best director of photography that ever existed."[68]
Sound[]
Citizen Kane's sound was recorded by Bailey Fesler and re-recorded in post-production by audio engineer James G. Stewart,[34]:85 both of whom had worked in radio.[10]:102 Stewart said that Hollywood films never deviated from a basic pattern of how sound could be recorded or used, but with Welles "deviation from the pattern was possible because he demanded it."[42] Although the film is known for its complex soundtrack, much of the audio is heard as it was recorded by Fesler and without manipulation.[10]:102
Welles used techniques from radio like overlapping dialogue. The scene in which characters sing "Oh, Mr. Kane" was especially complicated and required mixing several soundtracks together.[10]:104 He also used different "sound perspectives" to create the illusion of distances,[10]:101 such as in scenes at Xanadu where characters speak to each other at far distances.[42] Welles experimented with sound in post-production, creating audio montages,[69]:94 and chose to create all of the sound effects for the film instead of using RKO's library of sound effects.[10]:100
Welles used an aural technique from radio called the "lightning-mix". Welles used this technique to link complex montage sequences via a series of related sounds or phrases. For example, Kane grows from a child into a young man in just two shots. As Thatcher hands eight-year-old Kane a sled and wishes him a Merry Christmas, the sequence suddenly jumps to a shot of Thatcher fifteen years later, completing the sentence he began in both the previous shot and the chronological past. Other radio techniques include using a number of voices, each saying a sentence or sometimes merely a fragment of a sentence, and splicing the dialogue together in quick succession, such as the projection room scene.[70]:413–412 The film's sound cost $16,996, but was originally budgeted at $7,288.[10]:105
Film critic and director François Truffaut wrote that "Before Kane, nobody in Hollywood knew how to set music properly in movies. Kane was the first, in fact the only, great film that uses radio techniques. ... A lot of filmmakers know enough to follow Auguste Renoir's advice to fill the eyes with images at all costs, but only Orson Welles understood that the sound track had to be filled in the same way."[71] Cedric Belfrage of The Clipper wrote "of all of the delectable flavours that linger on the palate after seeing Kane, the use of sound is the strongest."[46]:1171
Make-up[]
The make-up for Citizen Kane was created and applied by Maurice Seiderman (1907–1989), a junior member of the RKO make-up department.[72]:19 Seiderman's family came to the United States from Russia in 1920, escaping persecution.[72]:18 As a child Seiderman had won a drawing competition and received an apprenticeship at the Moscow Art Theatre,[36]:157 where his father was a wigmaker and make-up artist.[73]:42 In New York his uncle was a theatrical scenic painter, and he helped Seiderman get into the union.[72]:18 He worked on Max Reinhardt's 1924 production of The Miracle and with the Yiddish Art Theatre,[36]:157 and he studied the human figure at the Art Students League of New York.[73]:42 After he moved to Los Angeles he was hired first by Max Factor and then by RKO.[72]:19 Seiderman had not been accepted into the union, which recognized him as only an apprentice, but RKO nevertheless used him to make up principal actors.[72]:19
"Apprentices were not supposed to make up any principals, only extras, and an apprentice could not be on a set without a journeyman present," wrote make-up artist Dick Smith, who became friends with Seiderman in 1979. "During his years at RKO I suspect these rules were probably overlooked often."[72]:19 By 1940 Seiderman's uncredited film work included Winterset, Gunga Din, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Swiss Family Robinson and Abe Lincoln in Illinois.[73]:48 "Seiderman had gained a reputation as one of the most inventive and creatively precise up-and-coming makeup men in Hollywood," wrote biographer Frank Brady.[9]:253
On an early tour of RKO, Welles met Seiderman in the small make-up lab he created for himself in an unused dressing room.[72]:19 "Welles fastened on to him at once," wrote biographer Charles Higham. "With his great knowledge of makeup—indeed, his obsession with it, for he hated his flat nose—Welles was fascinated ... Seiderman had an intimate knowledge of anatomy and the process of aging and was acquainted with every line, wrinkle and accretion of fat in aging men and women. Impatient with most makeup methods of his era, he used casts of his subjects in order to develop makeup methods that ensured complete naturalness of expression—a naturalness unrivaled in Hollywood."[36]:157
"When Kane came out in script form, Orson told all of us about the picture and said that the most important aspect was the makeup," Seiderman recalled. "I felt that I was being given an assignment that was unique—so I worked accordingly. And there was a lot of work to do. Straight makeups were done in the makeup department by staff, but all the trick stuff and the principal characters were my personal work; nobody else ever touched them. They could not have handled it."[73]:46
Seiderman developed a thorough plan for aging the principal characters, first making a plaster cast of the face of each of the actors who aged, except Joseph Cotten who was unavailable at that time. He made a plaster mold of Welles's body down to the hips.[73]:46
"My sculptural techniques for the characters' aging were handled by adding pieces of white modeling clay, which matched the plaster, onto the surface of each bust," Seiderman told visual arts historian Norman Gambill. When Seiderman achieved the desired effect he cast the clay pieces in a soft plastic material[73]:46 that he formulated himself.[72]:20 These appliances were then placed onto the plaster bust and a four-piece mold was made for each phase of aging. The castings were then fully painted and paired with the appropriate wig for evaluation.[73]:46–47
Before the actors went before the cameras each day, the pliable pieces were applied directly to their faces to recreate Seiderman's sculptural image. Welles was allergic to Max Factor's gum, so Seiderman invented an alternative that also photographed more realistically.[73]:46 The facial surface was underpainted in a flexible red plastic compound;[73]:43 Cotten recalled being instructed to puff out his cheeks during this process. Later, seeing the results in the mirror, Cotten told Seiderman, "I am acting the part of a nice old gentleman, not a relief map of the Rocky Mountains." Seiderman replied, "You'd be surprised at what the camera doesn't see unless we place it within its view. How about some more coffee?"[74]:43
The red ground resulted in a warmth of tone that was picked up by the sensitive panchromatic film. Over that was applied liquid greasepaint, and then finally a colorless translucent talcum.[73]:42–43 Seiderman created the effect of skin pores on Kane's face by stippling the surface with a negative cast he made from an orange peel.[73]:42, 47
Welles was just as heavily made up as young Kane as he was for old Kane, and he often arrived on the set at 2:30 a.m.[12]:69 Application of the sculptural make-up for the oldest incarnation of the character took three-and-a-half hours. The make-up included appliances to age Welles's shoulders, breast and stomach.[72]:19–20 "In the film and production photographs, you can see that Kane had a belly that overhung," Seiderman said. "That was not a costume, it was the rubber sculpture that created the image. You could see how Kane's silk shirt clung wetly to the character's body. It could not have been done any other way."[73]:46
Seiderman worked with Charles Wright on the wigs. These went over a flexible skull cover that Seiderman created and sewed into place with elastic thread. When he found the wigs too full he untied one hair at a time to alter their shape. Kane's mustache was inserted into the makeup surface a few hairs at a time, to realistically vary the color and texture.[73]:43, 47
Seiderman made scleral lenses for Welles, Dorothy Comingore, George Coulouris and Everett Sloane, to dull the brightness of their young eyes. The lenses took a long time to fit properly, and Seiderman began work on them before devising any of the other makeup. "I painted them to age in phases, ending with the blood vessels and the Aurora Senilis of old age."[73]:47[lower-alpha 13]
"Cotten was the only principal for whom I had not made any sculptural casts, wigs or lenses," Seiderman said. When Cotten's old-age scenes needed to be shot out of sequence due to Welles's injured ankle, Seiderman improvised with appliances made for Kane's make-up. A sun visor was chosen to conceal Cotten's low hairline[73]:47–48 and the lenses he wore—hastily supplied by a Beverly Hills ophthalmologist—were uncomfortable.[74]:44–45
Seiderman's tour de force, the breakfast montage, was shot all in one day. "Twelve years, two years shot at each scene," he said. "Please realize, by the way, that a two-year jump in age is a bit harder to accomplish visually than one of 20 years."[73]:47
As they did with art direction, the major studios gave screen credit for make-up to only the department head. When RKO make-up department head Mel Berns refused to share credit with Seiderman, who was only an apprentice, Welles told Berns that there would be no make-up credit. Welles signed a large advertisement in the Los Angeles newspaper:[72]:22[73]:48
THANKS TO EVERYBODY WHO GETS SCREEN CREDIT FOR "CITIZEN KANE"
AND THANKS TO THOSE WHO DON'T
TO ALL THE ACTORS, THE CREW, THE OFFICE, THE MUSICIANS, EVERYBODY
AND PARTICULARLY TO MAURICE SEIDERMAN, THE BEST MAKE-UP MAN IN THE WORLD[72]:20
"To put this event in context, remember that I was a very low man," Seiderman recalled. "I wasn't even called a make-up man. I had started their laboratory and developed their plastic appliances for make-up. But my salary was $25 a week. And I had no union card."[73]:48
Seiderman told Gambill that after Citizen Kane was released, Welles was invited to a White House dinner where Frances Perkins was among the guests. Welles told her about the Russian immigrant who did the make-up for his film but could not join the union. Seiderman said the head of the union received a call from the Labor Department the next day, and in November 1941 he was a full union member.[72]:22[73]:48[lower-alpha 14]
Sets[]
Although credited as an assistant, the film's art direction was done by Perry Ferguson.[34]:85 Welles and Ferguson got along during their collaboration.[10]:37 In the weeks before production began Welles, Toland and Ferguson met regularly to discuss the film and plan every shot, set design and prop. Ferguson would take notes during these discussions and create rough designs of the sets and story boards for individual shots. After Welles approved the rough sketches, Ferguson made miniature models for Welles and Toland to experiment on with a periscope in order to rehearse and perfect each shot. Ferguson then had detailed drawings made for the set design, including the film's lighting design. The set design was an integral part of the film's overall look and Toland's cinematography.[10]:42
In the original script the Great Hall at Xanadu was modeled after the Great Hall in Hearst Castle and its design included a mixture of Renaissance and Gothic styles.[10]:50–51 "The Hearstian element is brought out in the almost perverse juxtaposition of incongruous architectural styles and motifs," wrote Carringer.[10]:54 Before RKO cut the film's budget, Ferguson's designs were more elaborate and resembled the production designs of early Cecil B. DeMille films and Intolerance.[10]:55 The budget cuts reduced Ferguson's budget by 33 percent and his work cost $58,775 total,[10]:65 which was below average at that time.[69]:93 To save costs Ferguson and Welles re-wrote scenes in Xanadu's living room and transported them to the Great Hall. A large staircase from another film was found and used at no additional cost.[10]:56–57 When asked about the limited budget, Ferguson said "Very often—as in that much-discussed 'Xanadu' set in Citizen Kane—we can make a foreground piece, a background piece, and imaginative lighting suggest a great deal more on the screen than actually exists on the stage."[10]:65–66 According to the film's official budget there were 81 sets built, but Ferguson said there were between 106 and 116.[10]:64
Still photographs of Oheka Castle in Huntington, New York, were used in the opening montage, representing Kane's Xanadu estate.[77][78] Ferguson also designed statues from Kane's collection with styles ranging from Greek to German Gothic.[10]:61 The sets were also built to accommodate Toland's camera movements. Walls were built to fold and furniture could quickly be moved. The film's famous ceilings were made out of muslin fabric and camera boxes were built into the floors for low angle shots.[10]:64–65 Welles later said that he was proud that the film production value looked much more expensive than the film's budget. Although neither worked with Welles again, Toland and Ferguson collaborated in several films in the 1940s.[10]:65
Special effects[]
The film's special effects were supervised by RKO department head Vernon L. Walker.[34]:85 Welles pioneered several visual effects to cheaply shoot things like crowd scenes and large interior spaces. For example, the scene in which the camera in the opera house rises dramatically to the rafters, to show the workmen showing a lack of appreciation for Susan Alexander Kane's performance, was shot by a camera craning upwards over the performance scene, then a curtain wipe to a miniature of the upper regions of the house, and then another curtain wipe matching it again with the scene of the workmen. Other scenes effectively employed miniatures to make the film look much more expensive than it truly was, such as various shots of Xanadu.[79]
Some shots included rear screen projection in the background, such as Thompson's interview of Leland and some of the ocean backgrounds at Xanadu.[10]:88 Bordwell claims that the scene where Thatcher agrees to be Kane's guardian used rear screen projection to depict young Kane in the background, despite this scene being cited as a prime example of Toland's deep focus cinematography.[59]:74 A special effects camera crew from Walker's department was required for the extreme close-up shots such as Kane's lips when he says "Rosebud" and the shot of the typewriter typing Susan's bad review.[10]:88
Optical effects artist Dunn claimed that "up to 80 percent of some reels was optically printed." These shots were traditionally attributed to Toland for years.[80]:110 The optical printer improved some of the deep focus shots.[10]:92 One problem with the optical printer was that it sometimes created excessive graininess, such as the optical zoom out of the snow globe. Welles decided to superimpose snow falling to mask the graininess in these shots.[10]:94 Toland said that he disliked the results of the optical printer,[10]:92 but acknowledged that "RKO special effects expert Vernon Walker, ASC, and his staff handled their part of the production—a by no means inconsiderable assignment—with ability and fine understanding."[59]:74–75
Any time deep focus was impossible—as in the scene in which Kane finishes a negative review of Susan's opera while at the same time firing the person who began writing the review—an optical printer was used to make the whole screen appear in focus, visually layering one piece of film onto another.[10]:92 However, some apparently deep-focus shots were the result of in-camera effects, as in the famous scene in which Kane breaks into Susan's room after her suicide attempt. In the background, Kane and another man break into the room, while simultaneously the medicine bottle and a glass with a spoon in it are in closeup in the foreground. The shot was an in-camera matte shot. The foreground was shot first, with the background dark. Then the background was lit, the foreground darkened, the film rewound, and the scene re-shot with the background action.[10]:82
Music[]
The film's music was composed by Bernard Herrmann.[81]:72 Herrmann had composed for Welles for his Mercury Theatre radio broadcasts.[81]:63 Because it was Herrmann's first motion picture score, RKO wanted to pay him only a small fee, but Welles insisted he be paid at the same rate as Max Steiner.[81]:72
The score established Herrmann as an important new composer of film soundtracks[35] and eschewed the typical Hollywood practice of scoring a film with virtually non-stop music. Instead Herrmann used what he later described as '"radio scoring", musical cues typically 5–15 seconds in length that bridge the action or suggest a different emotional response.[81]:77–78 The breakfast montage sequence begins with a graceful waltz theme and gets darker with each variation on that theme as the passage of time leads to the hardening of Kane's personality and the breakdown of his first marriage.[82][83]
Herrmann realized that musicians slated to play his music were hired for individual unique sessions; there was no need to write for existing ensembles. This meant that he was free to score for unusual combinations of instruments, even instruments that are not commonly heard. In the opening sequence, for example, the tour of Kane's estate Xanadu, Herrmann introduces a recurring leitmotiv played by low woodwinds, including a quartet of alto flutes.[84]
For Susan Alexander Kane's operatic sequence, Welles suggested that Herrmann compose a witty parody of a Mary Garden vehicle, an aria from Salammbô.[12]:57 "Our problem was to create something that would give the audience the feeling of the quicksand into which this simple little girl, having a charming but small voice, is suddenly thrown," Herrmann said.[81]:79 Writing in the style of a 19th-century French Oriental opera,[54] Herrmann put the aria in a key that would force the singer to strain to reach the high notes, culminating in a high D, well outside the range of Susan Alexander.[81]:79–80 Soprano Jean Forward dubbed the vocal part for Comingore.[35] Houseman claimed to have written the libretto, based on Jean Racine's Athalie and Phedre,[23]:460–461 although some confusion remains since Lucille Fletcher remembered preparing the lyrics.[81]:80 Fletcher, then Herrmann's wife, wrote the libretto for his opera Wuthering Heights.[81]:11
Music enthusiasts consider the scene in which Susan Alexander Kane attempts to sing the famous cavatina "Una voce poco fa" from Il barbiere di Siviglia by Gioachino Rossini with vocal coach Signor Matiste as especially memorable for depicting the horrors of learning music through mistakes.[85]
In 1972, Herrmann said, "I was fortunate to start my career with a film like Citizen Kane, it's been a downhill run ever since!" Welles loved Herrmann's score and told director Henry Jaglom that it was 50 percent responsible for the film's artistic success.[81]:84
Some incidental music came from other sources. Welles heard the tune used for the publisher's theme, "Oh, Mr. Kane", in Mexico.[12]:57 Called "A Poco No", the song was written by Pepe Guízar and special lyrics were written by Herman Ruby.[86]
"In a Mizz", a 1939 jazz song by Charlie Barnet and Haven Johnson, bookends Thompson's second interview of Susan Alexander Kane.[10]:108[86] "I kind of based the whole scene around that song," Welles said. "The music is by Nat Cole—it's his trio."[12]:56 Later—beginning with the lyrics, "It can't be love"—"In a Mizz" is performed at the Everglades picnic, framing the fight in the tent between Susan and Kane.[10]:108 Musicians including bandleader Cee Pee Johnson (drums), Alton Redd (vocals), Raymond Tate (trumpet), Buddy Collette (alto sax) and Buddy Banks (tenor sax) are featured.[87]
All of the music used in the newsreel came from the RKO music library, edited at Welles's request by the newsreel department to achieve what Herrmann called "their own crazy way of cutting". The News on the March theme that accompanies the newsreel titles is "Belgian March" by Anthony Collins, from the film Nurse Edith Cavell. Other examples are an excerpt from Alfred Newman's score for Gunga Din (the exploration of Xanadu), Roy Webb's theme for the film Reno (the growth of Kane's empire), and bits of Webb's score for Five Came Back (introducing Walter Parks Thatcher).[81]:79[86]
Editing[]
One of the editing techniques used in Citizen Kane was the use of montage to collapse time and space, using an episodic sequence on the same set while the characters changed costume and make-up between cuts so that the scene following each cut would look as if it took place in the same location, but at a time long after the previous cut. In the breakfast montage, Welles chronicles the breakdown of Kane's first marriage in five vignettes that condense 16 years of story time into two minutes of screen time.[88] Welles said that the idea for the breakfast scene "was stolen from The Long Christmas Dinner of Thornton Wilder ... a one-act play, which is a long Christmas dinner that takes you through something like 60 years of a family's life."[12]:51 The film often uses long dissolves to signify the passage of time and its psychological effect of the characters, such as the scene in which the abandoned sled is covered with snow after the young Kane is sent away with Thatcher.[60]:90–91
Welles was influenced by the editing theories of Sergei Eisenstein by using jarring cuts that caused "sudden graphic or associative contrasts", such as the cut from Kane's deathbed to the beginning of the News on the March sequence and a sudden shot of a shrieking bird at the beginning of Raymond's flashback.[60]:88–89 Although the film typically favors mise-en-scène over montage, the scene in which Kane goes to Susan Alexander's apartment after first meeting her is the only one that is primarily cut as close-ups with shots and counter shots between Kane and Susan.[34]:68 Fabe says that "by using a standard Hollywood technique sparingly, [Welles] revitalizes its psychological expressiveness."[60]:88
Themes[]
Political themes[]
In her 1992 monograph for the British Film Institute, critic Laura Mulvey explored the anti-fascist themes of Citizen Kane. The News on the March newsreel presents Kane keeping company with Hitler and other dictators while he smugly assures the public there will be no war.[89]:44 Mulvey wrote that the film reflects "the battle between intervention and isolationism" then being waged in the United States; the film was released six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was laboring to win public opinion for entering World War II. "Not only was the war in Europe the burning public issue of the time," Mulvey wrote, "it was of passionate personal importance to Orson Welles ... In the rhetoric of Citizen Kane, the destiny of isolationism is realised in metaphor: in Kane's own fate, dying wealthy and lonely, surrounded by the detritus of European culture and history."[34]:15
Journalist Ignacio Ramonet has cited the film as an early example of mass media manipulation of public opinion and the power that media conglomerates have on influencing the democratic process. Ramonet believes that this early example of a media mogul influencing politics is outdated and that "today Citizen Kane would be a dwarf. He owned a few papers in one country. The forces that dominate today have integrated image with text and sound and the world is their market. There are media groups with the power of a thousand Citizen Kanes."[90][91] Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is sometimes labeled as a latter-day Citizen Kane.[92][93]
Reception[]
Pre-release controversy[]
To ensure that Citizen Kane's influence from Hearst's life was a secret, Welles limited access to dailies and managed the film's publicity. A December 1940 feature story in Stage magazine compared the film's narrative to Faust and made no mention of Hearst.[10]:111
The film was scheduled to premiere at RKO's flagship theater Radio City Music Hall on February 14, but in early January 1941 Welles was not finished with post-production work and told RKO that it still needed its musical score.[11]:205 Writers for national magazines had early deadlines and so a rough cut was previewed for a select few on January 3, 1941[10]:111 for such magazines as Life, Look and Redbook. Gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (and Parsons' arch rival) showed up to the screening uninvited. Most of the critics at the preview said that they liked the film and gave it good advanced reviews. Hopper wrote negatively about it, calling the film a "vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man" and criticizing its corny writing and old fashioned photography.[11]:205 Friday magazine ran an article drawing point-by-point comparisons between Kane and Hearst and documented how Welles had led on Parsons, Hollywood correspondent for Hearst papers.[10]:111 Up until this Welles had been friendly with Parsons. The magazine quoted Welles as saying that he couldn't understand why she was so nice to him and that she should "wait until the woman finds out that the picture's about her boss." Welles immediately denied making the statement and the editor of Friday admitted that it may be false. Welles apologized to Parsons and assured her that he had never made that remark.[11]:205
Shortly after Friday's article, Hearst sent Parsons an angry letter complaining that he had learned about Citizen Kane from Hopper and not her. The incident made a fool of Parsons and compelled her to start attacking Welles and the film. Parsons demanded a private screening of the film and personally threatened Schaefer on Hearst's behalf, first with a lawsuit and then with a vague threat of consequences for everyone in Hollywood. On January 10 Parsons and two lawyers working for Hearst were given a private screening of the film.[11]:206 James G. Stewart was present at the screening and said that she walked out of the film.[41]:11 Soon after, Parsons called Schaefer and threatened RKO with a lawsuit if they released Kane.[10]:111 She also contacted the management of Radio City Music Hall and demanded that they not screen it.[11]:206 The next day, the front page headline in Daily Variety read, "HEARST BANS RKO FROM PAPERS."[94] Hearst began this ban by suppressing promotion of RKO's Kitty Foyle,[69]:94 but in two weeks the ban was lifted for everything except Kane.[10]:111
When Schaefer did not submit to Parsons she called other studio heads and made more threats on behalf of Hearst to expose the private lives of people throughout the entire film industry.[11]:206 Welles was threatened with an exposé about his romance with the married actress Dolores del Rio, who wanted the affair kept secret until her divorce was finalized.[11]:207 In a statement to journalists Welles denied that the film was about Hearst. Hearst began preparing an injunction against the film for libel and invasion of privacy, but Welles's lawyer told him that he doubted Hearst would proceed due to the negative publicity and required testimony that an injunction would bring.[11]:209
The Hollywood Reporter ran a front-page story on January 13 that Hearst papers were about to run a series of editorials attacking Hollywood's practice of hiring refugees and immigrants for jobs that could be done by Americans. The goal was to put pressure on the other studios to force RKO to shelve Kane.[10]:111 Many of those immigrants had fled Europe after the rise of fascism and feared losing the safe haven of the United States.[11]:209 Soon afterwards, Schaefer was approached by Nicholas Schenck, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's parent company, with an offer on the behalf of Louis B. Mayer and other Hollywood executives to RKO Pictures of $805,000 to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative.[10]:111–112[95] Once RKO's legal team reassured Schaefer, the studio announced on January 21 that Kane would be released as scheduled, and with one of the largest promotional campaigns in the studio's history. Schaefer brought Welles to New York City for a private screening of the film with the New York corporate heads of the studios and their lawyers.[10]:112 There was no objection to its release provided that certain changes, including the removal or softening of specific references that might offend Hearst, were made.[10]:112–113 Welles agreed and cut the running time from 122 minutes to 119 minutes. The cuts satisfied the corporate lawyers.[10]:113
Hearst's response[]
Hearing about Citizen Kane enraged Hearst so much that he banned any advertising, reviewing, or mentioning of it in his papers, and had his journalists libel Welles.[95] Welles used Hearst's opposition as a pretext for previewing the film in several opinion-making screenings in Los Angeles, lobbying for its artistic worth against the hostile campaign that Hearst was waging.[95] A special press screening took place in early March. Henry Luce was in attendance and reportedly wanted to buy the film from RKO for $1 million to distribute it himself. The reviews for this screening were positive. A Hollywood Review headline read, "Mr. Genius Comes Through; 'Kane' Astonishing Picture". The Motion Picture Herald reported about the screening and Welles's intention to sue RKO. Time magazine wrote that "The objection of Mr. Hearst, who founded a publishing empire on sensationalism, is ironic. For to most of the several hundred people who have seen the film at private screenings, Citizen Kane is the most sensational product of the U.S. movie industry." A second press screening occurred in April.[69]:94
When Schaefer rejected Hearst's offer to suppress the film, Hearst banned every newspaper and station in his media conglomerate from reviewing—or even mentioning—the film. He also had many movie theaters ban it, and many did not show it through fear of being socially exposed by his massive newspaper empire.[96] The Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for the film's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable. Nevertheless, the film's commercial performance fell short of its creators' expectations.[25] Hearst's biographer David Nasaw points out that Hearst's actions were not the only reason Kane failed, however: the innovations Welles made with narrative, as well as the dark message at the heart of the film (that the pursuit of success is ultimately futile) meant that a popular audience could not appreciate its merits.[97]:572–573
Hearst's attacks against Welles went beyond attempting to suppress the film. Welles said that while he was on his post-filming lecture tour a police detective approached him at a restaurant and advised him not to go back to his hotel. A 14-year-old girl had reportedly been hidden in the closet of his room, and two photographers were waiting for him to walk in. Knowing he would be jailed after the resulting publicity, Welles did not return to the hotel but waited until the train left town the following morning. "But that wasn't Hearst," Welles said, "that was a hatchet man from the local Hearst paper who thought he would advance himself by doing it."[12]:85–86
In March 1941 Welles directed a Broadway version of Richard Wright's Native Son (and, for luck, used a "Rosebud" sled as a prop). Native Son received positive reviews, but Hearst-owned papers used the opportunity to attack Welles as a communist.[11]:213 The Hearst papers vociferously attacked Welles after his April 1941 radio play, "His Honor, the Mayor",[98] produced for The Free Company radio series on CBS.[33]:113[99]
Welles described his chance encounter with Hearst in an elevator at the Fairmont Hotel on the night Citizen Kane opened in San Francisco. Hearst and Welles's father were acquaintances, so Welles introduced himself and asked Hearst if he would like to come to the opening. Hearst did not respond. "As he was getting off at his floor, I said, 'Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.' No reply", recalled Welles. "And Kane would have you know. That was his style—just as he finished Jed Leland's bad review of Susan as an opera singer."[12]:49–50
In 1945 Hearst journalist Robert Shaw wrote that the film got "a full tide of insensate fury" from Hearst papers, "then it ebbed suddenly. With one brain cell working, the chief realized that such hysterical barking by the trained seals would attract too much attention to the picture. But to this day the name of Orson Welles is on the official son-of-a-bitch list of every Hearst newspaper."[100]:102
Despite Hearst's attempts to destroy the film, since 1941 references to his life and career have usually included a reference to Citizen Kane, such as the headline 'Son of Citizen Kane Dies' for the obituary of Hearst's son.[101] In 2012 the Hearst estate agreed to screen the film at Hearst Castle in San Simeon, breaking Hearst's ban on the film.[102]
Release[]
Radio City Music Hall's management refused to screen Citizen Kane for its premiere. A possible factor was Parsons's threat that The American Weekly would run a defamatory story on the grandfather of major RKO stockholder Nelson Rockefeller.[10]:115 Other exhibitors feared being sued for libel by Hearst and refused to show the film.[11]:216 In March Welles threatened the RKO board of governors with a lawsuit if they did not release the film. Schaefer stood by Welles and opposed the board of governors.[11]:210 When RKO still delayed the film's release Welles offered to buy the film for $1 million and the studio finally agreed to release the film on May 1.[11]:215
Schaefer managed to book a few theaters willing to show the film. Hearst papers refused to accept advertising.[10]:115 RKO's publicity advertisements for the film erroneously promoted it as a love story.[11]:217
Kane opened at the RKO Palace Theatre on Broadway in New York on May 1, 1941,[5] in Chicago on May 6, and in Los Angeles on May 8.[10]:115 Welles said that at the Chicago premiere that he attended the theater was almost empty.[11]:216 It did well in cities and larger towns but fared poorly in more remote areas. RKO still had problems getting exhibitors to show the film. For example, one chain controlling more than 500 theaters got Welles's film as part of a package but refused to play it, reportedly out of fear of Hearst.[10]:117 Hearst's disruption of the film's release damaged its box office performance and, as a result, it lost $160,000 during its initial run.[103]:164[104] The film earned $23,878 during its first week in New York. By the ninth week it only made $7,279. Overall it lost money in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., but made a profit in Seattle.[11]:216
Contemporary responses[]
Citizen Kane received good reviews from several critics. New York Daily News critic Kate Cameron called it "one of the most interesting and technically superior films that has ever come out of a Hollywood studio".[105] New York World-Telegram critic William Boehnel said that the film was "staggering and belongs at once among the greatest screen achievements".[106] Time magazine wrote that "it has found important new techniques in picture-making and story-telling."[11]:211 Life magazine's review said that "few movies have ever come from Hollywood with such powerful narrative, such original technique, such exciting photography."[11]:211 John C. Mosher of The New Yorker called the film's style "like fresh air" and raved "Something new has come to the movie world at last."[100]:68 Anthony Bower of The Nation called it "brilliant" and praised the cinematography and performances by Welles, Comingore and Cotten.[107] John O'Hara's Newsweek review called it the best picture he'd ever seen and said Welles was "the best actor in the history of acting."[11]:211 Welles called O'Hara's review "the greatest review that anybody ever had."[38]:100
The day following the premiere of Citizen Kane, The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote that "... it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood."
Count on Mr. Welles: he doesn't do things by halves. ... Upon the screen he discovered an area large enough for his expansive whims to have free play. And the consequence is that he has made a picture of tremendous and overpowering scope, not in physical extent so much as in its rapid and graphic rotation of thoughts. Mr. Welles has put upon the screen a motion picture that really moves.[108]
In the UK C. A. Lejeune of The Observer called it "The most exciting film that has come out of Hollywood in twenty-five years"[109] and Dilys Powell of The Sunday Times said the film's style was made "with the ease and boldness and resource of one who controls and is not controlled by his medium."[110]:63 Edward Tangye Lean of Horizon praised the film's technical style, calling it "perhaps a decade ahead of its contemporaries."[111][lower-alpha 15]
A few reviews were mixed. Otis Ferguson of The New Republic said it was "the boldest free-hand stroke in major screen production since Griffith and Bitzer were running wild to unshackle the camera", but also criticized its style, calling it a "retrogression in film technique" and stating that "it holds no great place" in film history.[113] In a rare film review, filmmaker Erich von Stroheim criticized the film's story and non-linear structure, but praised the technical style and performances, and wrote "Whatever the truth may be about it, Citizen Kane is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Welles!"[114]
Some prominent critics wrote negative reviews. In his 1941 review for Sur, Jorge Luis Borges famously called the film "a labyrinth with no center" and predicted that its legacy would be a film "whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again."[115] The Argus Weekend Magazine critic Erle Cox called the film "amazing" but thought that Welles's break with Hollywood traditions was "overdone."[116] Tatler's James Agate called it "the well-intentioned, muddled, amateurish thing one expects from high-brows"[117] and "a quite good film which tries to run the psychological essay in harness with your detective thriller, and doesn't quite succeed."[118] Eileen Creelman of The New York Sun called it "a cold picture, unemotional, a puzzle rather than a drama".[36]:178 Other people who disliked the film were W. H. Auden[38]:98 and James Agee.[38]:99
Awards[]
Citizen Kane received the New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Picture.[119] The National Board of Review voted it Best Film of 1941,[120] and recognized Welles and Coulouris for their performances.[121]
Citizen Kane received nine nominations at the 1941 Academy Awards:[122]
Outstanding Motion Picture – Mercury
Best Director – Orson Welles
Best Actor – Orson Welles
Best Writing (Original Screenplay) – Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles
Best Art Direction (Black-and-White) – Perry Ferguson, Van Nest Polglase, Al Fields, Darrell Silvera
Best Cinematography (Black-and-White) – Gregg Toland
Best Film Editing – Robert Wise
Best Music (Music Score of a Dramatic Picture) – Bernard Herrmann
Best Sound Recording – John Aalberg
It was widely believed the film would win most of its Oscar nominations, but it received only the award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay), shared by Welles and Mankiewicz. Variety reported that block voting by screen extras deprived Citizen Kane of Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Actor (Welles), and similar prejudices were likely to have been responsible for the film receiving no technical awards.[10]:117[123]
Legacy[]
Citizen Kane was the only film made under Welles's original contract with RKO Pictures, which gave him complete creative control.[11]:223 Welles's new business manager and attorney permitted the contract to lapse. In July 1941,[124][125] Welles reluctantly signed a new and less favorable deal with RKO[11]:223 under which he produced and directed The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), produced Journey into Fear (1943), and began It's All True, a film he agreed to do without payment. In the new contract Welles was an employee of the studio[126] and lost the right to final cut, which later allowed RKO to modify and re-cut The Magnificent Ambersons over his objections.[11]:223 In June 1942 Schaefer resigned the presidency of RKO Pictures and Welles's contract was terminated by his successor.[53]
Release in Europe[]
During World War II, Citizen Kane was not seen in most European countries. It was shown in France for the first time on July 10, 1946 at the Marbeuf theatre in Paris.[127]:34–35[lower-alpha 16] Initially most French film critics were influenced by the negative reviews of Jean-Paul Sartre in 1945 and Georges Sadoul in 1946.[10]:118 At that time many French intellectuals and filmmakers shared Sartre's negative opinion that Hollywood filmmakers were uncultured.[129]:124 Sartre criticized the film's flashbacks for its nostalgic and romantic preoccupation with the past instead of the realities of the present and said that "the whole film is based on a misconception of what cinema is all about. The film is in the past tense, whereas we all know that cinema has got to be in the present tense."[130][131]
André Bazin, a little-known film critic working for Sartre's Les Temps modernes, was asked to give an impromptu speech about the film after a screening at the Colisée Theatre in the autumn of 1946[127]:36 and changed the opinion of much of the audience. This speech led to Bazin's 1947 article "The Technique of Citizen Kane",[129]:125 which directly influenced public opinion about the film.[129]:124 Carringer wrote that Bazin was "the one who did the most to enhance the film's reputation."[10]:118[lower-alpha 17] Both Bazin's critique of the film and his theories about cinema itself centered around his strong belief in mise en scène. These theories were diametrically opposed to both the popular Soviet montage theory[58]:xiii and the politically Marxist and anti-Hollywood beliefs of most French film critics at that time.[127]:36 Bazin believed that a film should depict reality without the filmmaker imposing their "will" on the spectator, which the Soviet theory supported.[58]:xiii Bazin wrote that Citizen Kane's mise en scène created a "new conception of filmmaking"[58]:233 and that the freedom given to the audience from the deep focus shots was innovative by changing the entire concept of the cinematic image.[129]:128 Bazin wrote extensively about the mise en scène in the scene where Susan Alexander attempts suicide, which was one long take while other films would have used four or five shots in the scene.[58]:234 Bazin wrote that the film's mise en scène "forces the spectator to participate in the meaning of the film" and creates "a psychological realism which brings the spectator back to the real conditions of perception."[59]:72
In his 1950 essay "The Evolution of the Language of Cinema", Bazin placed Citizen Kane center stage as a work which ushered in a new period in cinema.[132]:37 One of the first critics to defend motion pictures as being on the same artistic level as literature or painting, Bazin often used the film as an example of cinema as an art form[129]:129 and wrote that "Welles has given the cinema a theoretical restoration. He has enriched his filmic repertory with new or forgotten effects that, in today's artistic context, take on a significance we didn't know they could have."[58]:236 Bazin also compared the film to Roberto Rossellini's Paisà for having "the same aesthetic concept of realism"[129]:117–118 and to the films of William Wyler shot by Toland (such as The Little Foxes and The Best Years of Our Lives), all of which used deep focus cinematography that Bazin called "a dialectical step forward in film language."[59]:71
Bazin's praise of the film went beyond film theory and reflected his own philosophy towards life itself.[129]:125 His metaphysical interpretations about the film reflected humankind's place in the universe.[129]:128 Bazin believed that the film examined one person's identity and search for meaning. It portrayed the world as ambiguous and full of contradictions, whereas films up until then simply portrayed people's actions and motivations.[129]:130 Bazin's biographer Dudley Andrew wrote that:
The world of Citizen Kane, that mysterious, dark, and infinitely deep world of space and memory where voices trail off into distant echoes and where meaning dissolves into interpretation, seemed to Bazin to mark the starting point from which all of us try to construct provisionally the sense of our lives.[129]:129
Bazin went on to co-found Cahiers du cinéma, whose contributors (including future film directors François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard) also praised the film.[132]:37 The popularity of Truffaut's auteur theory helped the film's and Welles's reputation.[133]:263
Re-evaluation[]
By 1942 Citizen Kane had run its course theatrically and, apart from a few showings at big city arthouse cinemas, it largely vanished and both the film's and Welles's reputation fell among American critics. In 1949 critic Richard Griffith in his overview of cinema, The Film Till Now, dismissed Citizen Kane as "... tinpot if not crackpot Freud."[10]:117–118
In the United States, it was neglected and forgotten until its revival on television in the mid-1950s. Three key events in 1956 led to its re-evaluation in the United States: first, RKO was one of the first studios to sell its library to television, and early that year Citizen Kane started to appear on television; second, the film was re-released theatrically to coincide with Welles's return to the New York stage, where he played King Lear; and third, American film critic Andrew Sarris wrote "Citizen Kane: The American Baroque" for Film Culture, and described it as "the great American film" and "the work that influenced the cinema more profoundly than any American film since Birth of a Nation."[134] Carringer considers Sarris's essay as the most important influence on the film's reputation in the US.[10]:119
During Expo 58, a poll of over 100 film historians named Kane one of the top ten greatest films ever made (the group gave first-place honors to The Battleship Potemkin). When a group of young film directors announced their vote for the top six, they were booed for not including the film.[135]:152
In the decades since, its critical status as the greatest film ever made has grown, with numerous essays and books on it including Peter Cowie's The Cinema of Orson Welles, Ronald Gottesman's Focus on Citizen Kane, a collection of significant reviews and background pieces, and most notably Kael's essay, "Raising Kane", which promoted the value of the film to a much wider audience than it had reached before.[10]:120 Despite its criticism of Welles, it further popularized the notion of Citizen Kane as the great American film. The rise of art house and film society circuits also aided in the film's rediscovery.[10]:119 David Thomson said that the film 'grows with every year as America comes to resemble it."[46]:1172
The British magazine Sight & Sound has produced a Top Ten list surveying film critics every decade since 1952, and is regarded as one of the most respected barometers of critical taste.[136] Citizen Kane was a runner up to the top 10 in its 1952 poll but was voted as the greatest film ever made in its 1962 poll,[137] retaining the top spot in every subsequent poll[138][139][140] until 2012, when Vertigo displaced it.[141]
The film has also ranked number one in the following film "best of" lists: Julio Castedo's The 100 Best Films of the Century,[142] Cahiers du cinéma's 100 films pour une cinémathèque idéale,[143] Kinovedcheskie Zapiski,[144] Time Out magazine's Top 100 Films (Centenary),[145] The Village Voice's 100 Greatest Films,[146] and The Royal Belgian Film Archive's Most Important and Misappreciated American Films.[147]
Roger Ebert called Citizen Kane the greatest film ever made: "But people don't always ask about the greatest film. They ask, 'What's your favorite movie?' Again, I always answer with Citizen Kane."[148]
In 1989, the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. Citizen Kane was one of the first 25 films inducted into the registry.[149]
On February 18, 1999, the United States Postal Service honored Citizen Kane by including it in its Celebrate the Century series.[150] The film was honored again February 25, 2003, in a series of U.S. postage stamps marking the 75th anniversary of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Art director Perry Ferguson represents the behind-the-scenes craftsmen of filmmaking in the series; he is depicted completing a sketch for Citizen Kane.[151]
Citizen Kane was ranked number one in the American Film Institute's polls of film industry artists and leaders in 1998[152] and 2007.[153] "Rosebud" was chosen as the 17th most memorable movie quotation in a 2005 AFI poll.[154] The film's score was one of 250 nominees for the top 25 film scores in American cinema in another 2005 AFI poll.[155]
In 2012, the Motion Picture Editors Guild published a list of the 75 best-edited films of all time based on a survey of its membership. Citizen Kane was listed second.[156]
The film currently has a 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 73 reviews by approved critics, with an average rating of 9.4/10. The site's consensus states: "Orson Welles's epic tale of a publishing tycoon's rise and fall is entertaining, poignant, and inventive in its storytelling, earning its reputation as a landmark achievement in film."[157]
Influence[]
Citizen Kane has been called the most influential film of all time.[158] Richard Corliss has asserted that Jules Dassin's 1941 film The Tell-Tale Heart was the first example of its influence[159] and the first pop culture reference to the film occurred later in 1941 when the spoof comedy Hellzapoppin' featured a "Rosebud" sled.[160][lower-alpha 18] The film's cinematography was almost immediately influential and in 1942 American Cinematographer wrote "without a doubt the most immediately noticeable trend in cinematography methods during the year was the trend toward crisper definition and increased depth of field."[162]:51
The cinematography influenced John Huston's The Maltese Falcon. Cinematographer Arthur Edeson used a wider-angle lens than Toland and the film includes many long takes, low angles and shots of the ceiling, but it did not use deep focus shots on large sets to the extent that Citizen Kane did. Edeson and Toland are often credited together for revolutionizing cinematography in 1941.[162]:48–50 Toland's cinematography influenced his own work on The Best Years of Our Lives. Other films influenced include Gaslight, Mildred Pierce and Jane Eyre.[10]:85–86 Cinematographer Kazuo Miyagawa said that his use of deep focus was influenced by "the camera work of Gregg Toland in Citizen Kane" and not by traditional Japanese art.[163]
Its cinematography, lighting, and flashback structure influenced such film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s as The Killers, Keeper of the Flame, Caught, The Great Man[70]:425 and This Gun for Hire.[10]:85–86 David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson have written that "For over a decade thereafter American films displayed exaggerated foregrounds and somber lighting, enhanced by long takes and exaggerated camera movements." However, by the 1960s filmmakers such as those from the French New Wave and Cinéma vérité movements favored "flatter, more shallow images with softer focus" and Citizen Kane's style became less fashionable. American filmmakers in the 1970s combined these two approaches by using long takes, rapid cutting, deep focus and telephoto shots all at once.[133]:798 Its use of long takes influenced films such as The Asphalt Jungle, and its use of deep focus cinematography influenced Gun Crazy,[133]:389–390 The Whip Hand, The Devil's General and Justice Is Done.[133]:414 The flashback structure in which different characters have conflicting versions of past events influenced La commare secca[133]:533 and Man of Marble.[133]:747
The film's structure influenced the biographical films Lawrence of Arabia and Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters—which begin with the subject's death and show their life in flashbacks—as well as Welles's thriller Mr. Arkadin.[135]:154 Rosenbaum sees similarities in the film's plot to Mr. Arkadin, as well as the theme of nostalgia for loss of innocence throughout Welles's career, beginning with Citizen Kane and including The Magnificent Ambersons, Mr. Arkadin and Chimes at Midnight. Rosenbaum also points out how the film influenced Warren Beatty's Reds. The film depicts the life of Jack Reed through the eyes of Louise Bryant, much as Kane's life is seen through the eyes of Thompson and the people who he interviews. Rosenbaum also compared the romantic montage between Reed and Bryant with the breakfast table montage in Citizen Kane.[164]:113–116, 300–302
Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon is often compared to the film due to both having complicated plot structures told by multiple characters in the film. Welles said his initial idea for the film was "Basically, the idea Rashomon used later on,"[12]:53 however Kurosawa had not yet seen the film before making Rashomon in 1950.[165]:78 Nigel Andrews has compared the film's complex plot structure to Rashomon, Last Year at Marienbad, Memento and Magnolia. Andrews also compares Charles Foster Kane to Michael Corleone in The Godfather, Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull and Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood for their portrayals of "haunted megalomaniac[s], presiding over the shards of [their] own [lives]."[166]
The films of Paul Thomas Anderson have been compared to it. Variety compared There Will Be Blood to the film[167] and called it "one that rivals Giant and Citizen Kane in our popular lore as origin stories about how we came to be the people we are."[168] The Master has been called "movieland's only spiritual sequel to Citizen Kane that doesn't shrivel under the hefty comparison"[169] and the film's loose depiction of L. Ron Hubbard has been compared to Citizen Kane's depiction of Hearst.[170] The Social Network has been compared to the film for its depiction of a media mogul and by the character Erica Albright being similar to "Rosebud".[171] The controversy of the Sony hacking before the release of The Interview b | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 45 | https://www.scribd.com/document/707308084/Movies | en | Action Films | https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/707308084/original/7226a0ecdf/1723659147?v=1 | https://imgv2-2-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/707308084/original/7226a0ecdf/1723659147?v=1 | [
"https://s-f.scribdassets.com/webpack/assets/images/shared/gr_table_reading.9f6101a1.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"jineko8700"
] | null | Movies - Free download as Excel Spreadsheet (.xls / .xlsx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. This document lists 118 movies with their titles, release dates, runtimes, and genres. The movies span from 1993 to 2007 and cover a wide variety of genres including action, adventure, animation, comedy, crime, drama, fantasy, horror, martial arts, science fiction, thriller, and war. Many popular film franchises and adaptations of books are featured. The longest movie is 201 minutes while the shortest is 87 minutes. | en | https://s-f.scribdassets.com/scribd.ico?19d484716?v=5 | Scribd | https://www.scribd.com/document/707308084/Movies | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 53 | https://living.alot.com/entertainment/15-box-office-flops-that-are-now-cult-classics--12442 | en | 49 Box Office Flops That Are Now Cult Classics | [
"https://assets.alot.com/assets/common/conditions/375_60x60.jpg",
"https://assets.alot.com/assets/common/wellness/u5084_60x60.jpg",
"https://assets.alot.com/assets/common/conditions/u20075_60x60.jpg",
"https://assets.alot.com/assets/common/wellness/u20077_60x60.jpg",
"https://assets.alot.com/assets/common/l... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2024-07-25T08:00:00+00:00 | Let's face it, film companies usually tell us what movies we are going to like. Cult films, on the other hand, gain their popularity through audience choic | en | /assets/img/Living/favicon.ico | Alot Living | https://living.alot.com/entertainment/15-box-office-flops-that-are-now-cult-classics--12442 | Let’s face it—there have been plenty of terrible movies through the years that were commercial successes at the box office. Even though it can be a fairly good indicator of quality, the amount of money a movie brings in on opening weekend doesn’t paint the complete picture about whether it’s a good movie that people will still be watching decades later.
However, some films face the opposite problem—they flop when it comes to ticket sales and initial reviews, even though they might be truly unique and entertaining films. Luckily, that’s not the end of the story! Even though these movies might not have made anyone a millionaire, they still developed cult followings of devoted fans who would love and watch these “failed” films for years to come.
In this slideshow, we’re taking a look at some of the biggest movie underdogs of all time. They might not have started life with a bang, but some of these films are 70+ years old and still going strong! You might even be surprised to know that one or more of your favorite films tanked at the box office originally! The movie market completely underestimated the power of these movies! Read on to learn more! | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 51 | https://neiloseman.com/citizen-kane-retrospective/ | en | "Citizen Kane" Retrospective | [
"https://neiloseman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Citizen-Kane-660x330.jpeg",
"https://neiloseman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/citizen-kane-1941-framegrab-16-660x495.jpg",
"https://neiloseman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/citizen_kane_silhouette-660x495.jpg",
"https://neiloseman.com/wp-content/uploads/202... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"neiloseman"
] | 2022-05-02T14:00:25+00:00 | For five decades in a row, Citizen Kane was voted the greatest film of all time in Sight & Sound’s International Critic’s Choice poll. Although pipped to the top spot by Vertigo in the latest poll, there are still plenty of filmmakers, academics and fans who consider actor-director Orson Welles’ 1941 debut the very pinnacle […] | en | Neil Oseman | https://neiloseman.com/citizen-kane-retrospective/ | For five decades in a row, Citizen Kane was voted the greatest film of all time in Sight & Sound’s International Critic’s Choice poll. Although pipped to the top spot by Vertigo in the latest poll, there are still plenty of filmmakers, academics and fans who consider actor-director Orson Welles’ 1941 debut the very pinnacle of cinematic accomplishment.
The spoilt son of a hotelier and a concert pianist, Orson Welles found fame in 1938 when he directed and starred in a radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds which was so convincing that thousands thought it was real and fled their homes. Not long afterwards, RKO, one of the five big studios of Hollywood’s Golden Age, offered a generous two-picture deal to the 24-year-old who had never made a film before and didn’t much want to.
12 months and two abandoned concepts later, Welles teamed with screenplay-fixer Herman J. Mankiewicz, whose past projects included The Wizard of Oz, to script the rise and fall of a powerful newspaper magnate based on William Randolph Hearst. The pair went through five drafts, making changes for creative, financial and legal reasons (hoping to avoid a lawsuit from Hearst).
The story’s fictionalised press baron, Charles Foster Kane, dies in the opening scene, but his mysterious last word – “Rosebud” – spurs a journalist to investigate his life. The journalist’s interviews with Kane’s friends and associates lead the viewer into extended flashbacks, an innovative structure for the time.
Welles himself took the title role, spending many hours in the make-up chair to portray Kane from youth to old age. Inventive, non-union make-up artist Maurice Seiderman developed new techniques to create convincing wrinkles that would not restrict the actor’s facial expressions. Sometimes Welles would be called as early as 2:30am, holding production meetings while Seiderman worked on him.
“I was just as made-up as a young man as an old man,” Welles said later, noting that he wore a prosthetic nose, face-lifting tape and a corset to satisfy both his own vanity and the demands of the studio for a handsome leading man.
The young auteur – who directed part of the film from a wheelchair after fracturing his ankle – was not easy to work with. Editor Robert Wise said: “He could one moment be guilty of a piece of behaviour that was so outrageous it would make you want to tell him to go to Hell and walk off the picture. Before you could do it he’d come up with some idea that was so brilliant that it would literally have your mouth gaping open, so you never walked. You stayed.”
Welles was keen for his film to look different from others, drawing on his experience of directing theatre. The leading DP of the time, Gregg Toland, jumped at the chance to break the rules. Influenced by German Expressionism, he was not afraid of silhouettes and bright shafts of light.
Welles cast many of his Mercury Players – a theatre repertory company he had set up himself – who he knew could handle long takes. He insisted on a large depth of field and often shot from low angles to mimic the experience of a theatre-goer, specifically someone in the front row looking up at the cast. This required many of the sets to have ceilings, unconventionally, and these were made of fabric in some cases so that the boom mic could record through them.
Special effects were used extensively to reduce set-building costs and avoid location shooting wherever possible. One example is a crane-up from a theatre’s stage to a pair of technicians watching from the flies above; the middle part of the shot is a matte painting, bridging the two live-action set pieces. In another scene, the camera travels through a neon sign on the roof of a building and down through the skylight; the rooftop is a miniature, the sign is rigged to split apart as the camera moves through it, and a flash of lightning eases the transition into the live-action set.
“We were under schedule and under budget,” Welles proudly stated in a 1982 interview. He cheated though, because he asked the studio for ten days of camera tests, citing his inexperience behind the lens, and used those ten days to start shooting the movie!
When Citizen Kane was premiered in May 1941, William Randolph Hearst was not fooled by the script tweaks and took the title character as an unflattering portrayal of himself. While he was unable to suppress the film’s release – though not for the want of trying – a smear campaign in his publications ensured it only enjoyed moderate success and that Welles would never have the filmmaking career that such a startling debut should have sparked. It wasn’t until the 1950s that Citizen Kane received the critical acclaim which it still holds today, 81 years on. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 66 | https://www.coursesidekick.com/information-systems/1736242 | en | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | ||||||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 3 | https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/89/citizen-kane | en | Not Available | [
"https://prod-images.tcm.com/img/global/logo-WatchTCM-animated-singleplay.gif",
"https://prod-images.tcm.com/img/global/logo-TCM_white.png",
"https://www.tcm.com/themes/custom/bacall/img/global/watch-tcm-transparent.svg"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Turner Classic Movies presents the greatest classic films of all time from one of the largest film libraries in the world. Find extensive video, photos, articles, forums, and archival content from some of the best movies ever made only at TCM.com. | en | /themes/custom/bogart/favicon.ico | Watch TCM | http://prod.tcm.com/unavailable/ | Welcome, DISH customer! Please note that we cannot save your viewing history due to an arrangement with DISH.
Watchlist and resume progress features have been disabled.
ACCEPT | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 8 | https://time.com/3840818/citizen-kane-orson-welles/ | en | Why Citizen Kane Almost Didn’t Happen | [
"https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/kane.jpeg?quality=85&w=640 640w, https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/kane.jpeg?quality=85&w=750 750w, https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/kane.jpeg?quality=85&w=828 828w, https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/kane.jpeg?quality=85&w=1... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Lily Rothman"
] | 2015-05-06T11:00:51+00:00 | Afraid of angering William Randolph Hearst, Hollywood considered pulling the plug | en | /favicon.ico | TIME | https://time.com/3840818/citizen-kane-orson-welles/ | On the 100th anniversary of his May 6, 1915, birth, it’s hard to imagine a version of the Orson Welles story that didn’t involve Citizen Kane. The actor and director took his time crossing over to Hollywood, but his first foray into feature-length filmmaking was destined to become one of cinematic history’s high points. The 1941 Kane is a regular denizen of best-movies-ever lists (including TIME’s) and one of the defining moments of Welles’ career.
But there was a moment when it looked like it might never get its theatrical release.
It was March of 1941, and filming was done, advertising had begun and three-quarters of a million dollars—a lot at the time–were already spent. Though the only people who had seen it so far had done so in private settings, word got around to media mogul William Randolph Hearst that the title character bore more than a little resemblance to his real-life self. As TIME noted, it was brash of Hearst to try to stop a film that was being hailed as landmark:
It seemed that Hearst would still try. By the end of the month, TIME reported that Hollywood had collective goosebumps at the thought of Hearst-owned papers going on the attack and releasing all the pent-up gossip reporters had collected. Louis B. Mayer of MGM was reportedly summoning the studios to remind RKO, Kane’s studio, that its competitors controlled (and could stop) distribution. There was even talk that the other studios, eager to avoid angering Hearst, were willing to chip in to pay RKO back for the money it had spent on Citizen Kane.
But the fear was all for naught. In a decidedly un-Hollywood fashion, Hearst eventually acknowledged that he just didn’t care that much. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 92 | https://www.youthworker.com/connecting-with-the-classics-citizen-kane/ | en | Connecting with the Classics: Citizen Kane | [
"https://www.youthworker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/site-logo.png",
"https://www.youthworker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/CitizenKane_lg.250w.tn_.jpg",
"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/?s=120&d=mm&r=g",
"https://www.youthworker.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/GirlInOrangeDress.250w.tn_.jpg",
"https:... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Seablaze",
"Patrick Boatwright",
"Trevor Miller",
"Hannah Aloi",
"Kirsten Peyton",
"Chris Mixer",
"Alyssa Bethke",
"Todd Outcalt",
"Abbie Taylor",
"Ryan M"
] | 2012-07-19T01:28:00+00:00 | I know exactly what you're thinking: "He's going to write about Rosebud—Charles Foster Kane's dying word—and how it represents his lost | en | https://www.youthworker.com/favicon.ico | YouthWorker | https://www.youthworker.com/connecting-with-the-classics-citizen-kane/ | I know exactly what you’re thinking: “He’s going to write about Rosebud—Charles Foster Kane’s dying word—and how it represents his lost childhood and how not even all the riches in the world can fill the void in a man’s heart—a void created by being torn from his family at such a young age and thrust into a life he never really wanted. He’s going to make the obvious biblical connection to Christ’s words, ‘What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?’ (Luke 9:25). May as well just go back to Facebook.” Well, you’re wrong.
While all those things are true of Citizen Kane, I’m not going to bore you with the obvious. I’d like to approach our discussion of the film from a slightly different angle.
Twice named the greatest American film of all time, Citizen Kane is held by many as the gold standard of excellence in filmmaking. Everything from the screenwriting to the acting to the cinematography heralds the greatness of Orson Welles’ phenomenal film. For any readers who have not seen Orson Welles’ masterpiece (if you haven’t seen this film, you must) or who have not seen it in quite some time, let me give you a brief synopsis:
Citizen Kane tells the story of one Charles Foster Kane, a man who comes into an incredible fortune as a youth. His parents sign custody of him over to a wealthy caretaker who will see to it that Kane receives a proper education and will ready him to take ownership of a massive estate when he comes of age. As a young adult, Kane disregards most of the fortune that is now his, instead turning all his energy and efforts to a small New York newspaper. In time, his newspaper becomes the largest and most powerful in the country, making Kane the wealthiest and perhaps the most influential man in America. He makes a run for the governor’s office, but is blackmailed into dropping out of the race. His first marriage crumbles soon after, and he then marries a would-be opera singer. He spends his midlife years trying to make his second wife into a first-class star and building an enormous pleasure palace in the tropics of Florida. As he collects wealth, fortune and priceless works of art, he turns more and more inward, pushing away those who were once his closest friends and eventually his second wife. In the end, he is a lonely recluse surrounded by the treasures of the world, but with no one except the house staff to share it with. He dies alone in one of the many suites of his enormous house, uttering one dying word, “Rosebud.”
While Kane is the central character of the film, the story unfolds as a newspaper reporter tries to uncover the mystery of this last word uttered by Kane. Who or what was Rosebud? What was Kane trying to say in that dying breath? The reporter spends the 119 minutes of the film interviewing Kane’s business associates, friends and second wife attempting to discover the meaning of “Rosebud.” Unfortunately, after all these conversations and a tour of Kane’s home, the reporter must return home empty handed. In the final scene, we the audience learn the meaning, but those on the screen never do.
Although the reporter and those he talks to never find out the meaning of Kane’s dying word, one thing does become crystal clear: Kane was an incredibly lonely man. His closest friends, his lifelong business partners and his wife hardly knew Charles Kane the man. They knew his public persona and his business management style, but knew very little about him as a person. Not a single person knew him well enough or was close enough to him to have any idea of what “Rosebud” meant. On several occasions, several different people comment about how Charley Kane never let anyone get close to him, always keeping everyone at arm’s distance. He wanted love, but only on his terms.
What a modern-day tragedy: a man who has literally gained the whole world—he had everything he could ever want and millions of dollars left over—and yet had no one to share it with. He had it all, except that which could make him truly happy: love and companionship. My pastor always says the purpose of life is relationship, relationship with God and relationship with others. We are not meant to live in isolation, keeping others at arm’s distance. A life not shared with others is a life that has been wasted.
Take It Further (Questions to engage students in dialogue):
1. Who are your closest friends? How much do you trust them? Upon what is that trust based? What, if anything, prevents you from trusting them more?
2. How would you prefer to be remembered when you pass on? How do you think your friends will remember you? Is there a difference in your answer to those two questions? If so, what will you do about it? | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 72 | https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-02-26-ca-1135-story.html | en | How ‘Kane’ Triumphed Over Turner in B&W; : Orson Welles’ RKO contract was too good for its time, and too tough for the colorizers to break | https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/64e287b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2400x1260+0+0/resize/1200x630!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fdf%2F45%2F57d858144a2a88575fa2b03080bb%2Flatlogo-ss.jpg | https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/64e287b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2400x1260+0+0/resize/1200x630!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fdf%2F45%2F57d858144a2a88575fa2b03080bb%2Flatlogo-ss.jpg | [
"https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/c329a99/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2330x1558+0+0/resize/320x214!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F5f%2Fad%2Fc12cdcdc4ac997a55401c1b941de%2Fgbretana-spacey-juicio-10170.jpg 320w,https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/defa... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"JACK MATHEWS"
] | 1989-02-26T00:00:00 | In an interview Orson Welles gave to two Spanish journalists in 1965, not long after his "Citizen Kane" had been acknowledged in a critics' poll as the greatest film ever made, Welles both boasted about and bemoaned the unprecedented personal power that had allowed him to make his masterpiece. | en | /apple-touch-icon.png | Los Angeles Times | https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-02-26-ca-1135-story.html | In an interview Orson Welles gave to two Spanish journalists in 1965, not long after his “Citizen Kane” had been acknowledged in a critics’ poll as the greatest film ever made, Welles both boasted about and bemoaned the unprecedented personal power that had allowed him to make his masterpiece.
“My problems with Hollywood started before I got there,” Welles said. “The real problem was that contract. . . . Never has a man been given so much power in the Hollywood system. An absolute power. And artistic control.”
Welles, who was 23 and had never been on a sound stage when he was signed by RKO Pictures in 1939, said he regretted having so much power so soon and felt that the relative commercial failure of “Citizen Kane” assured his never having such creative freedom again.
But if he lost his power, the language of that RKO contract was still pumping out enough voltage last week to jolt officials at media baron Ted Turner’s Los Angeles-based Turner Entertainment Co. into reversing their decision to colorize “Citizen Kane.”
Whether that reversal is a singular setback in a program that has already seen such classics as “Casablanca” and “The Maltese Falcon” go from black-and-white to a rainbow of computer-ordered colors, or a harbinger of tougher times ahead, it was cause for momentary rejoicing among colorization foes.
“Winning (this fight) is the first successful shot in a war I think we can now win,” said independent film maker Henry Jaglom, a protege of Welles and a member of the Directors Guild of America committee set up to combat colorization. “I was feeling defeated until this.”
Jaglom said he had read Welles’ contract, as well as letters between the late director and RKO executives, and that the creative control was “total.”
“He had control over the look of the picture, the sound, the music, cinematography--it was a sweetheart contract nobody at that time had,” said Jaglom, adding that he called Turner officials several weeks ago to threaten a law suit if they sent “Citizen Kane” to the paint shop.
Other Alterations
Now that the film’s black-and-white integrity seems preserved, the question is whether it can be useful in the directors’ long-range fight against colorization and other commercially expedient alterations routinely made on films that are not contractually protected against them. The alterations include “time compression,” the process of speeding up a film to squeeze it into a tighter time period, panning and scanning, by which wide-screen images are “squared off” for TV presentation, and post-release editing, where films are actually re-edited for television or video release.
Arnold Lutzger, the DGA’s Washington-based attorney, said he has mixed feelings about the “Citizen Kane” “victory.” He said he had had his eye on “Kane” as a possible test case to determine the extent of various state and federal laws protecting the rights of artists and he is sorry to lose it.
“Without knowing the details of (the RKO/Welles) contract, ‘Citizen Kane’ would have been an ideal test case,” Lutzger said. “You have one of the undisputed classic American films and you had a director who made living testament that he didn’t want it changed.”
Still, there will be other candidates for a test case, Lutzger said. The fact that Turner reversed itself “counts as a significant recognition from the primary mover on colorization that there are legal headaches ahead.”
One headache that Orson Welles may have prompted from the grave is other kinds of creative controls that might be built into hundreds of old contracts by principals other than directors. Lutzger said that if an actor, for instance, had approval of lighting for close-ups built into his or her contract, there is a question of whether those artists or their heirs could argue legally that colorization violates that agreement.
But that’s just one of many legal possibilities being considered by the DGA since it lost two key battles: One to get the U.S. Copyright Office to rule that colorized films cannot be copyrighted (the office said they can); the other was to get Congress to include a “moral rights” clause in the 1988 Berne Convention Implementation Act (Congress did not).
The 103-year-old Berne Treaty grants global copyrights to literary and artistic works. Last fall, the United States became the 77th nation to sign on, but in ratifying the treaty, Congress rejected the clause that currently protects film makers in 76 other countries from having their films altered in any way by the legal owners.
The campaign to get Congress to ratify Berne had the Motion Picture Assn. of America and its president, Jack Valenti, pushing and pulling at the same time. The MPAA, in its right-minded war against film piracy around the world, wanted the protection of Berne copyrights. But as the representative of the film establishment, it also was anxious not to have a moral rights clause that could end colorization and other technological means of commercial exploitation of American-made movies.
Treaty Compromise
The bill to ratify the treaty eventually included the moral rights language, said Lutzger, but a compromise was worked out so that the MPAA got its anti-piracy benefits without the moral rights clause.
Oddly, under the Berne Convention Implementation Act, directors without Welles-type contracts can still have their work altered, even though it will be protected in other Berne countries. Meanwhile, the films of foreign directors continue to be protected in their countries, but not here.
“We are trying to do something that hasn’t been done in 200 years,” said veteran director Elliott Silverstein. “We’re trying to get artists’ rights acknowledged in copyright law and give artists in America the same rights as artists in 76 other countries.”
Silverstein and Lutzger think one of their best hopes rests with the Lanham Act, a federal trademark law that was designed, among other things, to protect consumers from misrepresentation of products or services in interstate commerce.
Their argument, very simply, is that people buying or watching films that have been altered are not getting the product advertised.
Lutzger cited the case of Gilliam vs. ABC, which he said was won through Section 43A of the Lanham Act. In that case, Terry Gilliam, the lone American member of the British TV’s Monty Python’s Flying Circus, sued ABC over its editing of Python episodes that had been produced in conjunction with the BBC.
Gilliam, on behalf of the whole troupe, argued that ABC’s editing was so severe, it was no longer accurate to present it as Monty Python.
“It’s the first case that referred to the notion of ‘moral rights’ under U.S. law,” Lutzger said.
Besides basic property rights, producers and other owners of film libraries argue that film authorship is a fuzzy issue, not comparable to the artistic works of painters, sculptors and novelists. The directors maintain that their collaborators on films--the actors, writers and craftspeople--all support their claim for moral rights.
The responsibility for success and failure in films is often disputed. Even in the case of “Citizen Kane,” critics have questioned how much of that story was Welles’ and how much was contributed by his co-writer, Herman J. Mankiewicz.
In any case, it seems fitting that Welles and “Citizen Kane” have managed to raise a speed bump for the Turner juggernaut. Turner, a mogul with the self-confidence and resources of Charles Foster Kane himself, said he was colorizing “Citizen Kane” as much to rub his critics noses in it as to make money from it. And there was Welles to stop him.
How Welles slickered RKO out of that remarkable contract (and slickered Turner 40 years later) is the footnote that became a chapter in Hollywood history.
Welles was a 23-year-old wunderkind of New York stage and radio when struggling RKO’s chief, George Schaefer, reportedly at the urging of board member Nelson Rockefeller, offered Welles the contract he couldn’t refuse. It promised him $150,000 plus 25% of the profits for each of six films that he would write, direct and star in. It also offered him total creative control over the projects, once the script and budget had been approved.
“Citizen Kane” was the first film Welles completed for RKO and the only one where he was able to exercise all that power. He chose his own cast from his stable of Mercury Theater actors, none of whom had worked on a movie before. He picked his entire crew, including the renowned cinematographer Gregg Toland, who shares Welles’ credit for the vaunted look of “Kane.” He even supervised the marketing, including the self-indulgent five-minute trailer that preceded its release.
Welles didn’t have “absolute” control, though. A brothel scene was cut at the insistence of the Production Code Office, and a butler’s line (“He was a little gone in the head”) was cut at the insistence of RKO lawyers who were concerned about a lawsuit coming from William Randolph Hearst, upon whose life the film was so obviously based.
But when RKO began to sag at the knees over pressure from Hearst, from his papers, and from his cronies in Hollywood, Welles threatened to cash his contract in court and the studio relented and released the movie.
“Citizen Kane” was an instant critical hit, but audiences outside New York and Los Angeles found it easy to resist and the movie barely recovered its $842,000 cost.
Welles was in Brazil working on an ill-fated documentary when RKO ripped up both his contract and “The Magnificent Ambersons,” and Welles was a 26-year-old visionary that no one wanted to hire, let alone invest with unlimited power.
But for a moment, he had it, and what he did with it was to make one of the greatest films in history. He could have made it in color, but for reasons that are apparent on the screen, he chose to do it in black and white. And now, three years after his death, he has managed to insure that it will stay that way. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 27 | https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1971/02/20/raising-kane-i | en | Raising Kane | [
"https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/the-new-yorker/assets/logo.svg",
"https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/the-new-yorker/assets/logo-header.svg",
"https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59092f1aebe912338a3717e8/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/710220_r27420.jpg",
"https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5b2039f3f92aa133... | [] | [] | [
"alexander",
"arthur",
"ben",
"bernstein",
"bob",
"calif.",
"charles",
"cohn",
"dorothy",
"ezra",
"gene",
"goodman",
"harry",
"hawks",
"hearst",
"hollywood",
"hopper",
"howard",
"irving",
"john",
"joseph",
"jr.",
"macarthur",
"mayer",
"mccarthy",
"mercury theatre",
... | null | [
"Pauline Kael",
"Condé Nast"
] | 1971-02-20T00:00:00 | Pauline Kael's 1971 essay on “Citizen Kane,” Orson Welles, and Herman J. Mankiewicz. | en | https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/the-new-yorker/assets/favicon.ico | The New Yorker | https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1971/02/20/raising-kane-i | “Citizen Kane” is perhaps the one American talking picture that seems as fresh now as the day it opened. It may seem even fresher. A great deal in the movie that was conventional and almost banal in 1941 is so far in the past as to have been forgotten and become new, and the Pop characterizations look modern, and rather better than they did at the time. New audiences may enjoy Orson Welles’ theatrical flamboyance even more than earlier generations did, because they’re so unfamiliar with the traditions it came out of. When Welles was young—he was twenty-five when the film opened—he used to be accused of “excessive showmanship,” but the same young audiences who now reject “theatre” respond innocently and wholeheartedly to the most unabashed tricks of theatre—and of early radio plays—in “Citizen Kane.” At some campus showings, they react so gullibly that when Kane makes a demagogic speech about “the underprivileged,” stray students will applaud enthusiastically, and a shout of “Right on!” may be heard. Though the political ironies are not clear to young audiences, and though young audiences don’t know much about the subject—William Randolph Hearst, the master jingo journalist, being to them a stock villain, like Joe McCarthy; that is, a villain without the contours of his particular villainy—they nevertheless respond to the effrontery, the audacity, and the risks. Hearst’s career and his power provided a dangerous subject that stimulated and energized all those connected with the picture—they felt they were doing something instead of just working on one more cooked-up story that didn’t relate to anything that mattered. And to the particular kinds of people who shaped this enterprise the dangers involved made the subject irresistible.
“Citizen Kane,” the film that, as Truffaut said, is “probably the one that has started the largest number of filmmakers on their careers,” was not an ordinary assignment. It is one of the few films ever made inside a major studio in the United States in freedom—not merely in freedom from interference but in freedom from the routine methods of experienced directors. George J. Schaefer, who, with the help of Nelson Rockefeller, had become president of R.K.O. late in 1938, when it was struggling to avert bankruptcy, needed a miracle to save the company, and after the national uproar over Orson Welles’ “The War of the Worlds” broadcast Rockefeller apparently thought that Welles—“the wonder boy”—might come up with one, and urged Schaefer to get him. But Welles, who was committed to the theatre and wasn’t especially enthusiastic about making movies, rejected the first offer; he held out until Schaefer offered him complete control over his productions. Then Welles brought out to Hollywood from New York his own production unit—the Mercury Theatre company, a group of actors and associates he could count on—and, because he was inexperienced in movies and was smart and had freedom, he was able to find in Hollywood people who had been waiting all their lives to try out new ideas. So a miracle did come about, though it was not the kind of miracle R.K.O. needed.
“Kane” does something so well, and with such spirit, that the fullness and completeness of it continue to satisfy us. The formal elements themselves produce elation; we are kept aware of how marvellously worked out the ideas are. It would be high-toned to call this method of keeping the audience aware “Brechtian,” and it would be wrong. It comes out of a different tradition—the same commercial-comedy tradition that Walter Kerr analyzed so beautifully in his review of the 1969 Broadway revival of “The Front Page,” the 1928 play by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, when he said, “A play was held to be something of a machine in those days. . . . It was a machine for surprising and delighting the audience, regularly, logically, insanely, but accountably. A play was like a watch that laughed.” The mechanics of movies are rarely as entertaining as they are in “Citizen Kane,” as cleverly designed to be the kind of fun that keeps one alert and conscious of the enjoyment of the artifices themselves.
Walter Kerr goes on to describe the second-act entrance prepared for Walter Burns, the scheming, ruthless managing editor of “The Front Page”:
He can’t just come on and declare himself. . . . He’s got to walk into a tough situation in order to be brutally nonchalant, which is what we think is funny about him. The machinery has not only given him and the play the right punctuation, the change of pace that refreshes even as it moves on. It has also covered him, kept him from being obvious, while exploiting the one most obvious thing about him. You might say that the machinery has covered itself, perfectly squared itself. We are delighted to have the man on, we are delighted to have him on at this time, we are aware that it is sleight-of-hand that has got him on, and we are as delighted by the sleight-of-hand as by the man.
“Citizen Kane” is made up of an astonishing number of such bits of technique, and of sequences built to make their points and get their laughs and hit climax just before a fast cut takes us to the next. It is practically a collection of blackout sketches, but blackout sketches arranged to comment on each other, and it was planned that way right in the shooting script.
It is difficult to explain what makes any great work great, and particularly difficult with movies, and maybe more so with “Citizen Kane” than with other great movies, because it isn’t a work of special depth or a work of subtle beauty. It is a shallow work, a shallow masterpiece. Those who try to account for its stature as a film by claiming it to be profound are simply dodging the problem—or maybe they don’t recognize that there is one. Like most of the films of the sound era that are called masterpieces, “Citizen Kane” has reached its audience gradually over the years rather than at the time of release. Yet, unlike the others, it is conceived and acted as entertainment in a popular style (unlike, say, “Rules of the Game” or “Rashomon” or “Man of Aran,” which one does not think of in crowd-pleasing terms). Apparently, the easiest thing for people to do when they recognize that something is a work of art is to trot out the proper schoolbook terms for works of art, and there are articles on “Citizen Kane” that call it a tragedy in fugal form and articles that explain that the hero of “Citizen Kane” is time—time being a proper sort of modern hero for an important picture. But to use the conventional schoolbook explanations for greatness, and pretend that it’s profound, is to miss what makes it such an American triumph—that it manages to create something aesthetically exciting and durable out of the playfulness of American muckraking satire. “Kane” is closer to comedy than to tragedy, though so overwrought in style as to be almost a Gothic comedy. What might possibly be considered tragic in it has such a Daddy Warbucks quality that if it’s tragic at all it’s comic-strip tragic. The mystery in “Kane” is largely fake, and the Gothic-thriller atmosphere and the Rosebud gimmickry (though fun) are such obvious penny-dreadful popular theatrics that they’re not so very different from the fake mysteries that Hearst’s American Weekly used to whip up—the haunted castles and the curses fulfilled. “Citizen Kane” is a popular masterpiece—not in terms of actual popularity but in terms of its conceptions and the way it gets its laughs and makes its points. Possibly it was too complexly told to be one of the greatest commercial successes, but we can’t really tell whether it might have become even a modest success, because it didn’t get a fair chance.
Orson Welles brought forth a miracle, but he couldn’t get by with it. Although Hearst made some direct attempts to interfere with the film, it wasn’t so much what he did that hurt the film commercially as what others feared he might do, to them and to the movie industry. They knew he was contemplating action, so they did the picture in for him; it was as if they decided whom the king might want killed, and, eager to oblige, performed the murder without waiting to be asked. Before “Kane” opened, George J. Schaefer was summoned to New York by Nicholas Schenck, the chairman of the board of Loew’s International, the M-G-M affiliate that controlled the distribution of M-G-M pictures. Schaefer had staked just about everything on Welles, and the picture looked like a winner, but now Schenck made Schaefer a cash offer from Louis B. Mayer, the head of production at M-G-M, of $842,000 if Schaefer would destroy the negative and all the prints. The picture had actually cost only $686,033; the offer handsomely included a fair amount for the post-production costs.
Mayer’s motive may have been partly friendship and loyalty to Hearst, even though Hearst, who had formerly been associated with M-G-M, had, some years earlier, after a dispute with Irving Thalberg, taken his investment out of M-G-M and moved his star, Marion Davies, and his money to Warner Brothers. M-G-M had lost money on a string of costume clinkers starring Miss Davies (“Beverly of Graustark,” et al.), and had even lost money on some of her good pictures, but Mayer had got free publicity for M-G-M releases out of the connection with Hearst, and had also got what might be called deep personal satisfaction. In 1929, when Herbert Hoover invited the Mayers to the White House—they were the first “informal” guests after his inauguration—Hearst’s New York American gave the visit a full column. Mayer enjoyed fraternizing with Hearst and his eminent guests; photographs show Mayer with Hearst and Lindbergh, Mayer with Hearst and Winston Churchill, Mayer at lunch with Bernard Shaw and Marion Davies—but they never, of course, show Mayer with both Hearst and Miss Davies. Candid cameramen sometimes caught the two together, but Hearst, presumably out of respect for his wife, did not pose in groups that included Miss Davies. Despite the publicity showered on her in the Hearst papers, the forms were carefully observed. She quietly packed and left for her own house on the rare occasions when Mrs. Hearst, who lived in the East, was expected to be in residence at San Simeon. Kane’s infatuation for the singer Susan Alexander in the movie was thus a public flaunting of matters that Hearst was careful and considerate about. Because of this, Mayer’s long-time friendship for Hearst was probably a lesser factor than the fear that the Hearst press would reveal some sordid stories about the movie moguls and join in one of those recurrent crusades against movie immorality, like the one that had destroyed Fatty Arbuckle’s career. The movie industry was frightened of reprisals. (The movie industry is always frightened, and is always proudest of films that celebrate courage.) As one of the trade papers phrased it in those nervous weeks when no one knew whether the picture would be released, “the industry could ill afford to be made the object of counterattack by the Hearst newspapers.”
There were rumors that Hearst was mounting a general campaign; his legal staff had seen the script, and Louella Parsons, the Hearst movie columnist, who had attended a screening of the film flanked by lawyers, was agitated and had swung into action. The whole industry, it was feared, would take the rap for R.K.O.’s indiscretion, and, according to the trade press at the time (and Schaefer confirms this report), Mayer was not putting up the $842,000 all by himself. It was a joint offer from the top movie magnates, who were combining for common protection. The offer was presented to Schaefer on the ground that it was in the best interests of everybody concerned—which was considered to be the entire, threatened industry—for “Citizen Kane” to be destroyed. Rather astonishingly, Schaefer refused. He didn’t confer with his board of directors, because, he says, he had good reason to think they would tell him to accept. He refused even though R.K.O., having few theatres of its own, was dependent on the other companies and he had been warned that the big theatre circuits—controlled by the men who wanted the picture destroyed—would refuse to show it.
Schaefer knew the spot he was in. The première had been tentatively set for February 14th at the Radio City Music Hall—usually the showcase for big R.K.O. pictures, because R.K.O. was partly owned by the Rockefellers and the Chase National Bank, who owned the Music Hall. The manager of the theatre had been enthusiastic about the picture. Then, suddenly, the Music Hall turned it down. Schaefer phoned Nelson Rockefeller to find out why, and, he says, “Rockefeller told me that Louella Parsons had warned him off it, that she had asked him, ‘How would you like to have the American Weekly magazine section run a double-page spread on John D. Rockefeller?’ ” According to Schaefer, she had also called David Sarnoff, another large investor in R.K.O., and similarly threatened him. Schaefer was stranded; he had to scrounge for theatres, and, amid the general fear that Hearst might sue and would almost certainly remove advertising for any houses that showed “Citizen Kane,” he couldn’t get bookings. The solution was for R.K.O. to take the risks of any lawsuits, but when the company leased an independent theatre in Los Angeles and refurbished the Palace (then a vaudeville house), which R.K.O. owned, for the New York opening, and did the same for a theatre R.K.O. owned in Chicago, Schaefer had trouble launching an advertising campaign. (Schenck, not surprisingly, owned a piece of the biggest movie-advertising agency.) Even after the early rave reviews and the initial enthusiasm, Schaefer couldn’t get bookings except in the theatres that R.K.O. itself owned and in a few small art houses that were willing to take the risk. Eventually, in order to get the picture into theatres, Schaefer threatened to sue Warners’, Fox, Paramount, and Loew’s on a charge of conspiracy. (There was reason to believe the company heads had promised Hearst they wouldn’t show it in their theatres.) Warners’ (perhaps afraid of exposure and the troubles with their stockholders that might result from a lawsuit) gave in and booked the picture, and the others followed, halfheartedly—in some cases, theatres paid for the picture but didn’t play it.
By then, just about everybody in the industry was scared, or mad, or tired of the whole thing, and though the feared general reprisals against the industry did not take place, R.K.O. was getting bruised. The Hearst papers banned publicity on R.K.O. pictures and dropped an announced serialization of the novel “Kitty Foyle” which had been timed for the release of the R.K.O. film version. Some R.K.O. films didn’t get reviewed and others got bad publicity. It was all petty harassment, of a kind that could be blamed on the overzealous Miss Parsons and other Hearst employees, but it was obviously sanctioned by Hearst, and it was steady enough to keep the industry uneasy.
By the time “Citizen Kane” got into Warners’ theatres, the picture had acquired such an odd reputation that people seemed to distrust it, and it didn’t do very well. It was subsequently withdrawn from circulation, perhaps because of the vicissitudes of R.K.O., and until the late fifties, when it was reissued and began to play in the art houses and to attract a new audience, it was seen only in pirated versions in 16 mm. Even after Mayer had succeeded in destroying the picture commercially, he went on planning vengeance on Schaefer for refusing his offer. Stockholders in R.K.O. began to hear that the company wasn’t prospering because Schaefer was anti-Semitic and was therefore having trouble getting proper distribution for R.K.O. pictures. Schaefer says that Mayer wanted to get control of R.K.O. and that the rumor was created to drive down the price of the stock—that Mayer hoped to scare out Floyd Odlum, a major stockholder, and buy his shares. Instead, Odlum, who had opposed Nelson Rockefeller’s choice of Schaefer to run the company, bought enough of Sarnoff’s stock to have a controlling interest, and by mid-1942 Schaefer was finished at R.K.O. Two weeks after he left, Welles’ unit was evicted from its offices on the lot and given a few hours to move out, and the R.K.O. employees who had worked with Welles were punished with degrading assignments on B pictures. Mayer’s friendship with Hearst was not ruffled. A few years later, when Mayer left his wife of forty years, he rented Marion Davies’ Beverly Hills mansion. Eventually, he was one of Hearst’s honorary pallbearers. “Citizen Kane” didn’t actually lose money, but in Hollywood bookkeeping it wasn’t a big enough moneymaker to balance the scandal.
Welles was recently quoted as saying, “Theatre is a collective experience; cinema is the work of one single person.” This is an extraordinary remark from the man who brought his own Mercury Theatre players to Hollywood (fifteen of them appeared in “Citizen Kane”), and also the Mercury co-producer John Houseman, the Mercury Composer Bernard Herrmann, and various assistants, such as Richard Wilson, William Alland, and Richard Barr. He not only brought his whole supportive group—his family, he called them then—but found people in Hollywood, such as the cinematographer Gregg Toland, to contribute their knowledge and gifts to “Citizen Kane.” Orson Welles has done some marvellous things in his later movies—some great things—and there is more depth in the somewhat botched “The Magnificent Ambersons,” of 1942 (which also used many of the Mercury players), than in “Citizen Kane,” but his principal career in the movies has been in adaptation, as it was earlier on the stage. He has never again worked on a subject with the immediacy and impact of “Kane.” His later films—even those he has so painfully struggled to finance out of his earnings as an actor—haven’t been conceived in terms of daring modern subjects that excite us, as the very idea of “Kane” excited us. This particular kind of journalist’s sense of what would be a scandal as well as a great subject, and the ability to write it, belonged not to Welles but to his now almost forgotten associate Herman J. Mankiewicz, who wrote the script, and who inadvertently destroyed the picture’s chances. There is a theme that is submerged in much of “Citizen Kane” but that comes to the surface now and then, and it’s the linking life story of Hearst and of Mankiewicz and of Welles—the story of how brilliantly gifted men who seem to have everything it takes to do what they want to do are defeated. It’s the story of how heroes become comedians and con artists.
The Hearst papers ignored Welles—Hearst may have considered this a fit punishment for an actor—though they attacked him indirectly with sneak attacks on those associated with him, and Hearst would frequently activate his secular arm, the American Legion, against him. But the Hearst papers worked Mankiewicz over in headlines; they persecuted him so long that he finally appealed to the American Civil Liberties Union for help. There was some primitive justice in this. Hearst had never met Welles, and, besides, Welles was a kid, a twenty-five-year-old prodigy (whose daughter Marion Davies’ nephew was bringing up)—hardly the sort of person one held responsible. But Mankiewicz was a friend of both Marion Davies and Hearst, and had been a frequent guest at her beach house and at San Simeon. There, in the great baronial banquet hall, Hearst liked to seat Mankiewicz on his left, so that Mankiewicz, with all his worldliness and wit (the Central Park West Voltaire, Ben Hecht had called him a few years earlier), could entertain the guest of honor and Hearst wouldn’t miss any of it. Mankiewicz betrayed their hospitality, even though he liked them both. They must have presented an irresistible target. And so Hearst, the yellow-press lord who had trained Mankiewicz’s generation of reporters to betray anyone for a story, became at last the victim of his own style of journalism.
In the first Academy Award ceremony, for 1927-28, Warner Brothers, which had just produced “The Jazz Singer,” was honored for “Marking an Epoch in Motion Picture History.” If the first decade of talkies—roughly, the thirties—has never been rivalled in wit and exuberance, this is very largely because there was already in Hollywood in the late silent period a nucleus of the best American writers, and they either lured their friends West or were joined by them. Unlike the novelists who were drawn to Hollywood later, most of the best Hollywood writers of the thirties had a shared background; they had been reporters and critics, and they knew each other from their early days on newspapers and magazines.
In his autobiography, Ben Hecht tells of being broke in New York—it was probably the winter of 1926—and of getting a telegram from Herman Mankiewicz in Hollywood: “WILL YOU ACCEPT THREE HUNDRED PER WEEK TO WORK FOR PARAMOUNT PICTURES? ALL EXPENSES PAID. THE THREE HUNDRED IS PEANUTS. MILLIONS ARE TO BE GRABBED OUT HERE AND YOUR ONLY COMPETITION IS IDIOTS. DON’T LET THIS GET AROUND.” A newspaper photograph shows Mankiewicz greeting Hecht, “noted author, dramatist, and former newspaperman,” upon his arrival. After Hecht had begun work at Paramount, he discovered that the studio chief, B. P. Schulberg—who at that time considered writers a waste of money—had been persuaded to hire him by a gambler’s ploy: Mankiewicz had offered to tear up his own two-year contract if Hecht failed to write a successful movie. Hecht, that phenomenal fast hack who was to become one of the most prolific of all motion-picture writers (and one of the most frivolously cynical about the results), worked for a week and turned out the script that became Josef von Sternberg’s great hit “Underworld.” That script brought Hecht the first Academy Award for an original story, and a few years later he initiated the practice of using Oscars as doorstops. The studio heads knew what they had in Hecht as soon as they read the script, and they showed their gratitude. Hecht has recorded:
I was given a ten-thousand-dollar check as a bonus for the week’s work, a check which my sponsor Mankiewicz snatched out of my hand as I was bowing my thanks.
“You’ll have it back in a week,” Manky said. “I just want it for a few days to get me out of a little hole.”
He gambled valiantly, tossing a coin in the air with Eddie Cantor and calling heads or tails for a thousand dollars. He lost constantly. He tried to get himself secretly insured behind his good wife Sara’s back, planning to hock the policy and thus meet his obligation. This plan collapsed when the insurance-company doctor refused to accept him as a risk. I finally solved the situation by taking Manky into the Front Office and informing the studio bosses of our joint dilemma. I asked that my talented friend be given a five-hundred-a-week raise. The studio could then deduct this raise from his salary. . . .
I left . . . with another full bonus check in my hand; and Manky, with his new raise, became the highest paid writer for Paramount Pictures, Inc.
The bait that brought the writers in was money, but those writers who, like Mankiewicz, helped set the traps had their own reason: conviviality. Mankiewicz’s small joke “Don’t let this get around” came from a man who lived for talk, a man who saw moviemaking as too crazy, too profitable, and too easy not to share with one’s friends. By the early thirties, the writers who lived in Hollywood or commuted there included not only Mankiewicz and Hecht and Charles MacArthur but George S. Kaufman and Marc Connelly, and Nathanael West and his brother-in-law S. J. Perelman, and Preston Sturges, Dorothy Parker, Arthur Kober, Alice Duer Miller, John O’Hara, Donald Ogden Stewart, Samson Raphaelson (the New York Times reporter who wrote the play “The Jazz Singer”), Gene Fowler, and Nunnally Johnson, and such already famous playwrights as Philip Barry, S. N. Behrman, Maxwell Anderson, Robert Sherwood, and Sidney Howard. Scott Fitzgerald had already been there for his first stretch, in 1927, along with Edwin Justus Mayer, and by 1932 William Faulkner began coming and going, and from time to time Ring Lardner and Moss Hart would turn up. In earlier periods, American writers made a living on newspapers and magazines; in the forties and fifties, they went into the academies (or, once they got to college, never left). But in the late twenties and the thirties they went to Hollywood. And though, apparently, they one and all experienced it as prostitution of their talents—joyous prostitution in some cases—and though more than one fell in love with movies and thus suffered not only from personal frustration but from the corruption of the great, still new art, they nonetheless as a group were responsible for that sustained feat of careless magic we call “thirties comedy.” “Citizen Kane” was, I think, its culmination.
Herman J. Mankiewicz, born in New York City in 1897, was the first son of a professor of education, who then took a teaching position in Wilkes-Barre, where his second son, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, was born in 1909, and where the boys and a sister grew up. Herman Mankiewicz graduated from Columbia in 1916, and after a period as managing editor of the American Jewish Chronicle he became a flying cadet with the United States Army in 1917 and, in 1918, a private first class with the Fifth Marines, 2nd Division, A.E.F. In 1919 and 1920, he was the director of the American Red Cross News Service in Paris, and after returning to this country to marry a great beauty, Miss Sara Aaronson, of Baltimore, he took his bride overseas with him while he worked as a foreign correspondent in Berlin from 1920 to 1922, doing political reporting for George Seldes on the Chicago Tribune. During that time, he also sent pieces on drama and books to the New York Times and Women’s Wear. When he came home, he took a job as a reporter for the New York World. He was a gifted, prodigious writer, who contributed to Vanity Fair, the Saturday Evening Post, and many other magazines, and, while still in his twenties, collaborated with Heywood Broun, Dorothy Parker, Robert E. Sherwood, and others on a revue (“Round the Town”), and collaborated with George S. Kaufman on a play (“The Good Fellow”) and with Marc Connelly on another play (“The Wild Man of Borneo”). From 1923 to 1926, he was at the Times, backing up George S. Kaufman in the drama department; while he was there, he also became the first regular theatre critic for The New Yorker, writing weekly from June, 1925, until January, 1926, when he was offered a motion-picture contract and left for Hollywood. The first picture he wrote was the Lon Chaney success “The Road to Mandalay.” In all, he worked on over seventy movies. He went on living and working in Los Angeles until his death, in 1953. He left three children: Don, born in Berlin in 1922, who is a novelist (“Trial”) and a writer for television (“Marcus Welby, M.D.”) and the movies (co-writer of “I Want to Live!”); Frank, born in New York in 1924, who became a lawyer, a journalist, a Peace Corps worker, and Robert Kennedy’s press assistant, and is now a columnist and television commentator; and Johanna, born in Los Angeles in 1937, who is a journalist (on Time) and is married to Peter Davis, the writer of the Emmy Award-winning TV program “Hunger in America.”
Told this way, Herman Mankiewicz’s career sounds exemplary, but these are just the bare bones of the truth. Even though it would be easy to document this official life of the apparently rising young man with photographs of Mankiewicz in his Berlin days dining with the Chancellor, Mankiewicz in his newspaperman days outside the Chicago Tribune with Jack Dempsey, and so on, it would be hard to explain his sudden, early aging and the thickening of his features and the transparently cynical look on his face in later photographs.
It was a lucky thing for Mankiewicz that he got the movie job when he did, because he would never have risen at the Times, and though he wrote regularly for The New Yorker (and remarked of those of the Algonquin group who didn’t, “The part-time help of wits is no better than the full-time help of half-wits”), The New Yorker, despite his pleas for cash, was paying him partly in stock, which wasn’t worth much at the time. Mankiewicz drank heavily, and the drinking newspaperman was in the style of the World but not in the style of the Times. In October, 1925, he was almost fired. The drama critic then was Brooks Atkinson, and the drama editor was George S. Kaufman, with Mankiewicz second in line and Sam Zolotow third. Mankiewicz was sent to cover the performance of Gladys Wallis, who was the wife of the utilities magnate Samuel Insull, as Lady Teazle in “School for Scandal.” Mrs. Insull, who had abandoned her theatrical career over a quarter of a century before, was, according to biographers, bored with being a nobody when her husband was such a big somebody. She was fifty-six when she resumed her career, as Lady Teazle, who is meant to be about eighteen. The play had opened in Chicago, where, perhaps astutely, she performed for charity (St. Luke’s Hospital), and the press had described her as brilliant. The night of the New York opening, Mankiewicz came back to the office drunk, started panning Mrs. Insull’s performance, and then fell asleep over his typewriter. As Zolotow recalls it, “Kaufman began to read the review and it was so venomous he was outraged. That was the only time I ever saw Kaufman lose his temper.” The review wasn’t printed. The Times suffered the humiliation of running this item on October 23, 1925:
A NEW SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL
The School for Scandal, with Mrs. Insull as Lady Teazle, was produced at the Little Theatre last night. It will be reviewed in tomorrow’s Times.
Mankiewicz was in such bad shape that night that Kaufman told Zolotow to call Sara Mankiewicz and have her come get him and take him home. Mrs. Mankiewicz recalls that he still had his head down on his typewriter when she arrived, with a friend, to remove him. She says he took it for granted that he was fired, but nevertheless went to work promptly the next day. Zolotow recalls, “In the morning, Herman came down to the office and asked me to talk to Mr. Birchall, the assistant managing editor, on his behalf. Herman had brought a peace offering of a bottle of Scotch and I took it to Birchall. He had a red beard, and he tugged at it and he stabbed the air a few times with his index finger and said, ‘Herman is a bad boy, a bad boy.’ But he took the bottle and Herman kept his job until he got the movie offer.”
The review—unsigned—that the Times printed on October 24, 1925, was a small masterpiece of tact:
As Lady Teazle, Mrs. Insull is as pretty as she is diminutive, with a clear smile and dainty gestures. There is a charming grace in her bearing that makes for excellent deportment. But this Lady Teazle seems much too innocent, too thoroughly the country lass that Joseph terms her, to lend credit to her part in the play.
Scattered through various books, and in the stories that are still told of him in Hollywood, are clues that begin to give one a picture of Herman Mankiewicz, a giant of a man who mongered his own talent, a man who got a head start in the race to “sell out” to Hollywood. The pay was fantastic. After a month in the movie business, Mankiewicz —though his Broadway shows had not been hits, and though this was in 1926, when movies were still silent—signed a year’s contract giving him $400 a week and a bonus of $5,000 for each story that was accepted, with an option for a second year at $500 a week and $7,500 per accepted story, the company guaranteeing to accept at least four stories per year. In other words, his base pay was $40,800 his first year and $56,000 his second; actually, he wrote so many stories that he made much more. By the end of 1927, he was head of Paramount’s scenario department, and in January, 1928, there was a newspaper item reporting that he was in New York “lining up a new set of newspaper feature writers and playwrights to bring to Hollywood,” and that “most of the newer writers on Paramount’s staff who contributed the most successful stories of the past year were selected by ‘Mank.’ ” One reason that Herman Mankiewicz is so little known today is, ironically, that he went to Hollywood so early, before he had gained a big enough reputation in the literary and theatrical worlds. Screenwriters don’t make names for themselves; the most famous ones are the ones whose names were famous before they went to Hollywood, or who made names later in the theatre or from books, or who, like Preston Sturges, became directors.
Mankiewicz and other New Yorker writers in the twenties and the early thirties were very close to the world of the theatre; many of them were writing plays, writing about theatre people, reviewing plays. It’s not surprising that within a few years the magazine’s most celebrated contributors were in Hollywood writing movies. Of the ten friends of the editor Harold Ross who were in the original prospectus as advisory editors, six became screenwriters. When Mankiewicz gave up the drama critic’s spot, in 1926, he was replaced by Charles Brackett, and when Brackett headed West, Robert Benchley filled it while commuting, and then followed. Dorothy Parker, the book reviewer Constant Reader, went West, too. Nunnally Johnson, who was to work on over a hundred movies, was a close friend of Harold Ross’s and had volunteered to do the movie reviewing in 1926 but had been told that that job was for “old ladies and fairies.” Others in the group didn’t agree: Benchley had written on movies for the old Life as early as 1920, and John O’Hara later took time out from screenwriting to become the movie critic for Newsweek—where he was to review “Citizen Kane.” The whole group were interested in the theatre and the movies, and they were fast, witty writers, used to regarding their work not as deathless prose but as stories written to order for the market, used also to the newspaperman’s pretense of putting a light value on what they did—the “Look, no hands” attitude. Thus, they were well prepared to become the scenarists and gag writers of the talkies.
The comic muse of the most popular “daring” late silents was a carefree, wisecracking flapper. Beginning in 1926, Herman Mankiewicz worked on an astounding number of films in that spirit. In 1927 and 1928, he did the titles (the printed dialogue and explanations) for at least twenty-five films that starred Clara Bow, Bebe Daniels, Nancy Carroll, Esther Ralston, George Bancroft, Thomas Meighan, Jack Holt, Richard Dix, Wallace Beery, and other public favorites. He worked on the titles for Jules Furthman’s script of “Abie’s Irish Rose,” collaborated with Anita Loos on the wisecracks for “Gentlemen Prefer Blondes,” and did the immensely successful “The Barker” and “The Canary Murder Case,” with William Powell, Louise Brooks, James Hall, and Jean Arthur. By then, sound had come in, and in 1929 he did the script as well as the dialogue for “The Dummy,” with Ruth Chatterton and Fredric March (making his screen début), wrote William Wellman’s “The Man I Love,” with Richard Arlen, Pat O’Brien, and Mary Brian, and worked for Josef von Sternberg and many other directors.
Other screenwriters made large contributions, too, but probably none larger than Mankiewicz’s at the beginning of the sound era, and if he was at that time one of the highest-paid writers in the world, it was because he wrote the kind of movies that were disapproved of as “fast” and immoral. His heroes weren’t soft-eyed and bucolic; he brought good-humored toughness to the movies, and energy and astringency. And the public responded, because it was eager for modern American subjects. Even those of us who were children at the time loved the fast-moving modern-city stories. The commonplaceness—even tawdriness—of the imagery was such a relief from all that silent “poetry.” The talkies were a great step down. It’s hard to make clear to people who didn’t live through the transition how sickly and unpleasant many of those “artistic” silent pictures were—how you wanted to scrape off all that mist and sentiment.
Almost from the time the motion-picture camera was invented, there had been experiments with sound and attempts at synchronization, and the public was more than ready for talking pictures. Many of the late silents, if one looks at them now, seem to be trying to talk to us, crying out for sound. Despite the legend of paralysis of the medium when sound first came in, there was a burst of inventiveness. In musicals, directors like René Clair and, over here, Ernst Lubitsch and, to a lesser degree, Rouben Mamoulian didn’t use sound just for lip synchronization; they played with sound as they had played with images, and they tried to use sound without losing the movement of silents or the daring of silent editing. Some of the early talkies were static and inept; newly imported stage directors literally staged the action, as if the space were stage space, and the technicians had to learn to handle the microphones. But movies didn’t suddenly become stagebound because of the microphone. Many of the silents had always been stagebound, for the sufficient reason that they had been adapted from plays—from the war-horses of the repertory, because they had proved their popularity, and from the latest Broadway hits, because the whole country wanted to see them. The silent adaptations were frequently deadly, not just because of construction based on the classical unities, with all those entrances and exits and that painful emptiness on the screen of plays worked out in terms of absolutely essential characters only, but because everything kept stopping for the explanatory titles and the dialogue titles.
Even in the movies adapted from novels or written directly for the screen, the action rarely went on for long; silents were choked with titles, which were perhaps, on the average, between ten and twenty times as frequent as the interruptions for TV commercials. The printed dialogue was often witty, and often it was essential to an understanding of the action, but it broke up the rhythm of performances and the visual flow, and the titles were generally held for the slowest readers, so that one lost the mood of the film while staring at the dialogue for the third scanning. (It seems to me, thinking back on it, that we were so eager for the movie to go on that we gulped the words down and then were always left with them for what, to our impatience, seemed an eternity, and that the better the movie, the more quickly we tried to absorb and leap past the printed words, and the more frustrating the delays became.) The plain fact that many silent movies were plays without the spoken dialogue, plays deprived of their very substance, was what made the theatre-going audience—and the Broadway crowd of writers—so contemptuous of them. Filmed plays without the actors’ voices, and with the deadening delays for the heterogeneous audience to read the dialogue, were an abomination. Many of the journalists and playwrights and wits of the Algonquin Round Table had written perceptively about motion pictures (Alexander Woollcott, who managed to pan some of the greatest films, was an exception); they had, in general, been cynical only about the slop and the silent filmed plays. But though they had been active in the theatre, there had been no real place for them in movies; now, with the introduction of sound, they could bring to the screen the impudence that had given Broadway its flavor in the twenties—and bring it there before the satirical references were out of date. Sound made it possible for them to liberate movies into a new kind of contemporaneity.
There is an elaborate body of theory that treats film as “the nocturnal voyage into the unconscious,” as Luis Buñuel called it, and for a director such as Buñuel “the cinema seems to have been invented to express the life of the subconscious.” Some of the greatest work of D. W. Griffith and other masters of the silent film has a magical, fairy-tale appeal, and certainly Surrealists like Buñuel, and other experimental and avant-garde filmmakers as well, have drawn upon this dreamlike vein of film. But these artists were the exceptions; much of the dreamy appeal to the “subconscious” and to “universal” or “primitive” fantasies was an appeal to the most backward, not to say reactionary, elements of illiterate and semi-literate mass society. There was a steady load of calendar-art guck that patronized “the deserving poor” and idealized “purity” (i.e., virginity) and “morality” (i.e., virginity plus charity). And all that is only one kind of movie anyway. Most of the dream theory of film, which takes the audience for passive dreamers, doesn’t apply to the way one responded to silent comedies—which, when they were good, kept the audience in a heightened state of consciousness. When we join in laughter, it’s as if the lights were on in the theatre. And not just the Mack Sennett comedies and Keaton and Chaplin kept us fully awake but the spirited, bouncy comediennes, like Colleen Moore and Marion Davies, and the romantic comedy “teams,” and the suave, “polished” villains, like William Powell. My favorite movies as a child were the Bebe Daniels comedies—I suppose they were the movie equivalent of the series books one reads at that age. During 1927 and 1928, Paramount brought a new one out every few months; Bebe, the athletic madcap, would fence like Douglas Fairbanks, or she would parody Valentino by kidnapping and taming a man, or she might be a daredevil newsreel camerawoman or a cub reporter.
I did not know until I started to look into the writing of “Citizen Kane” that the man who wrote “Kane” had worked on some of those pictures, too—that Mankiewicz had, in fact, written (alone or with others) about forty of the films I remember best from the twenties and thirties (as well as many I didn’t see or don’t remember). Mankiewicz didn’t work on every kind of picture, though. He didn’t do Westerns, and once, when a studio attempted to punish him for his customary misbehavior by assigning him to a Rin Tin Tin picture, he turned in a script that began with the craven Rin Tin Tin frightened by a mouse and reached its climax with a house on fire and the dog taking a baby into the flames. I had known about Mankiewicz’s contribution to “Kane” and a few other films, but I hadn’t realized how extensive his career was. I had known that he was the producer of “Million Dollar Legs” (with W. C. Fields and Jack Oakie and Lyda Roberti) and “Laughter” (with Fredric March and Nancy Carroll), but I hadn’t known, for example, that he had produced two of the Marx Brothers films that I’ve always especially liked, the first two made in Hollywood and written directly for the screen—“Monkey Business” and “Horse Feathers”—and part of “Duck Soup” as well. A few years ago, some college students asked me what films I would like to see again just for my own pleasure, and without a second’s thought I replied “Duck Soup” and “Million Dollar Legs,” though at that time I had no idea there was any connection between them. Yet surely there is an iconic spirit that links them—even the settings, Freedonia and Klopstokia, with Groucho as Prime Minister of one and Fields as President of the other—and now that I have looked into Herman Mankiewicz’s career it’s apparent that he was a key linking figure in just the kind of movies my friends and I loved best.
When the period of the great silent comedians, with their international audience, was over, a new style of American comedy developed. One couldn’t really call a colloquial, skeptical comedy a “masterpiece,” as one could sometimes call a silent comedy a masterpiece, especially if the talkie looked quite banal and was so topical it felt transient. But I think that many of us enjoyed these comedies more, even though we may not have felt very secure about the aesthetic grounds for our enjoyment. The talking comedies weren’t as aesthetically pure as the silents, yet they felt liberating in a way that even great silents didn’t. The elements to which we could respond were multiplied; now there were vocal nuances, new kinds of timing, and wonderful new tricks, like the infectious way Claudette Colbert used to break up while listening to someone. It’s easy to see why Europeans, who couldn’t follow the slang and the jokes and didn’t understand the whole satirical frame of reference, should prefer our action films and Westerns. But it’s a bad joke on our good jokes that film enthusiasts here often take their cues on the American movie past from Europe, and so they ignore the tradition of comic irreverence and become connoisseurs of the “visuals” and “mises en scène” of action pictures, which are usually too silly even to be called reactionary. They’re sub-reactionary—the antique melodramas of silent days with noise added—a mass art better suited, one might think, to Fascism, or even feudalism, than to democracy.
There is another reason the American talking comedies, despite their popularity, are so seldom valued highly by film aestheticians. The dream-art kind of film, which lends itself to beautiful visual imagery, is generally the creation of the “artist” director, while the astringent film is more often directed by a competent, unpretentious craftsman who can be made to look very good by a good script and can be turned into a bum by a bad script. And this competent craftsman may be too worldly and too practical to do the “imaginative” bits that sometimes help make the reputations of “artist” directors. Ben Hecht said he shuddered at the touches von Sternberg introduced into “Underworld”: “My head villain, Bull Weed, after robbing a bank, emerged with a suitcase full of money and paused in the crowded street to notice a blind beggar and give him a coin—before making his getaway.” That’s exactly the sort of thing that quantities of people react to emotionally as “deep” and as “art,” and that many film enthusiasts treasure—the inflated sentimental with a mystical drip. The thirties, though they had their own load of sentimentality, were the hardest-headed period of American movies, and their plainness of style, with its absence of false “cultural” overtones, has never got its due aesthetically. Film students—and their teachers—often become interested in movies just because they are the kind of people who are emotionally affected by the blind-beggar bits, and they are indifferent by temperament to the emancipation of American movies in the thirties and the role that writers played in it.
I once jotted down the names of some movies that I didn’t associate with any celebrated director but that had nevertheless stayed in my memory over the years, because something in them had especially delighted me—such rather obscure movies as “The Moon’s Our Home” (Margaret Sullavan and Henry Fonda) and “He Married His Wife” (Nancy Kelly, Joel McCrea, and Mary Boland). When I looked them up, I discovered that Dorothy Parker’s name was in the credits of “The Moon’s Our Home” and John O’Hara’s in the credits of “He Married His Wife.” Other writers worked on those films, too, and perhaps they were the ones who were responsible for what I responded to, but the recurrence of the names of that group of writers, not just on rather obscure remembered films but on almost all the films that are generally cited as proof of the vision and style of the most highly acclaimed directors of that period, suggests that the writers—and a particular group of them, at that—may for a brief period, a little more than a decade, have given American talkies their character.
There is always a time lag in the way movies take over (and broaden and emasculate) material from the other arts—whether it is last season’s stage success or the novels of the preceding decade or a style or an idea that has run its course in its original medium (This does not apply to a man like Jean-Luc Godard, who is not a mass-medium movie director.) In most productions of the big studios, the time lag is enormous. In the thirties, after the great age of musical comedy and burlesque, Hollywood, except for Paramount, was just discovering huge operettas. After the Broadway days of Clifton Webb, Fred Astaire, the Marx Brothers, Fanny Brice, W. C. Fields, and all the rest, M-G-M gave us Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald, and Universal gave us Deanna Durbin. This is the history of movies. J. D. Salinger has finally come to the screen through his imitators, and Philip Roth’s fifties romance arrived at the end of the sixties. It may be that for new ideas to be successful in movies the way must be prepared by success in other media, and the audience must have grown tired of what it’s been getting and be ready for something new. There are always a few people in Hollywood who are considered mad dreamers for trying to do in movies things that have already been done in the other arts. But once one of them breaks through and has a hit, he’s called a genius and everybody starts copying him.
The new spirit of the talkies was the twenties moved West in the thirties. George S. Kaufman was writing the Marx Brothers stage shows when he and Mankiewicz worked together at the Times; a little later, Kaufman directed the first Broadway production of “The Front Page.” Kaufman’s collaborators on Broadway plays in the twenties and the early thirties included Marc Connelly, Edna Ferber, Ring Lardner, Morrie Ryskind, and Moss Hart as well as Mankiewicz—the nucleus of the Algonquin-to-Hollywood group. Nunnally Johnson says that the two most brilliant men he has ever known were George S. Kaufman and Herman Mankiewicz, and that, on the whole, Mankiewicz was the more brilliant of the two. I think that what Mankiewicz did in movies was an offshoot of the gag comedy that Kaufman had initiated on Broadway; Mankiewicz spearheaded the movement of that whole Broadway style of wisecracking, fast-talking, cynical-sentimental entertainment onto the national scene. Kaufman’s kind of impersonal, visionless comedy, with its single goal of getting the audience to laugh, led to the degeneration of the Broadway theatre, to its play doctors and gimmickry and scattershot jokes at defenseless targets, and so it would be easy to look down on the movie style that came out of it. But I don’t think the results were the same when this type of comedy was transplanted to movies; the only bad long-range consequences were to the writers themselves.
Kaufman fathered a movement that is so unmistakably the bastard child of the arts as to seem fatherless; the gag comedy was perfectly suited to the commercial mass art of the movies, so that it appears to be an almost inevitable development. It suited the low common denominator of the movies even better than it suited the needs of the relatively selective theatre audience, and the basic irresponsibility of this kind of theatre combined with the screenwriters’ lack of control over their own writing to produce what one might call the brothel period of American letters. It was a gold rush, and Mankiewicz and his friends had exactly the skills to turn a trick. The journalists’ style of working fast and easy and working to order and not caring too much how it was butchered was the best kind of apprenticeship for a Hollywood hack, and they had loved to gather, to joke and play games, to lead the histrionic forms of the glamorous literary life. Now they were gathered in cribs on each studio lot, working in teams side by side, meeting for lunch at the commissary and for dinner at Chasen’s, which their old friend and editor Harold Ross had helped finance, and all over town for drinks. They adapted each other’s out-of-date plays and novels, and rewrote each other’s scripts. Even in their youth in New York, most of them had indulged in what for them proved a vice: they were “collaborators”—dependent on the fun and companionship of joint authorship, which usually means a shared shallowness. Now they collaborated all over the place and backward in time; they collaborated promiscuously, and within a few years were rewriting the remakes of their own or somebody else’s rewrites. Mankiewicz adapted Kaufman and Ferber’s “The Royal Family” and “Dinner at Eight,” turned Alice Duer Miller’s “Come Out of the Kitchen” into “Honey,” and adapted George Kelly’s “The Show-Off” and James Thurber’s “My Life and Hard Times” and works by Laurence Stallings and other old friends while Ben Hecht or Preston Sturges or Arthur Kober was working over something of his. They escaped the cold, and they didn’t suffer from the Depression. They were a colony of expatriates without leaving the country—and their individual contributions to the scripts that emerged after the various rewrites were almost impossible to assess, because their attitudes were so similar; they made the same kind of jokes, because they had been making them to each other for so long. In Hollywood, they sat around building on to each other’s gags, covering up implausibilities and dull spots, throwing new wisecracks on top of jokes they had laughed at in New York. Screenwriting was an extension of what they used to do for fun, and now they got paid for it. They had liked to talk more than to write, and this weakness became their way of life. As far as the official literary culture was concerned, they dropped from sight. To quote a classic bit of dialogue from Budd Schulberg’s “The Disenchanted”:
“Bane had two hits running on Broadway at the same time. Even Nathan liked ’em. Popular ’n satirical. Like Barry, only better. The critics kept waiting for him to write that great American play.”
“What happened to him?”
“Hollywood.”
Hollywood destroyed them, but they did wonders for the movies. In New York, they may have valued their own urbanity too highly; faced with the target Hollywood presented, they became cruder and tougher, less tidy, less stylistically elegant, and more iconoclastic, and in the eyes of Hollywood they were slaphappy cynics, they were “crazies.” They were too talented and too sophisticated to put a high value on what they did, too amused at the spectacle of what they were doing and what they were part of to be respected the way a writer of “integrity,” like Lillian Hellman, was later to be respected—or, still later, Arthur Miller. Though their style was often flippant and their attitude toward form casual to the point of contempt, they brought movies the subversive gift of sanity. They changed movies by raking the old moralistic muck with derision. Those sickly Graustarkian romances with beautiful, pure highborn girls and pathetic lame girls and dashing princes in love with commoners, and all the Dumas and Sabatini and Blasco-Ibáñez, now had to compete with the freedom and wildness of American comedy. Once American films had their voice and the Algonquin group was turned loose on the scripts, the revolting worship of European aristocracy faded so fast that movie stars even stopped bringing home Georgian princes. In the silents, the heroes were often simpletons. In the talkies, the heroes were to be the men who weren’t fooled, who were smart and learned their way around. The new heroes of the screen were created in the image of their authors: they were fast-talking newspaper reporters.
That Walter Burns whose entrance in “The Front Page” Kerr described was based on Walter Howey, who was the city editor of the Chicago Tribune, at $8,000 a year, until Hearst lured him away by an offer of $35,000 a year. Howey is generally considered the “greatest” of all Hearst editors—by those who mean one thing by it, and by those who mean the other. He edited Hearst’s New York Mirror at a time when it claimed to be ten per cent news and ninety per cent entertainment. The epitome of Hearstian journalism, and a favorite of Hearst’s until the end, he was one of the executors of Hearst’s will. At one time or another, just about all the Hollywood writers had worked for Walter Howey and/or spent their drinking hours with friends who did. He was the legend: the classic model of the amoral, irresponsible, irrepressible newsman who cares about nothing but scoops and circulation. He had lost an eye (supposedly in actual fighting of circulation wars), and Ben Hecht is quoted as saying you could tell which was the glass eye because it was the warmer one. Hecht used him again in “Nothing Sacred,” as Fredric March’s editor—“a cross between a Ferris wheel and a werewolf”—and he turns up under other names in other plays and movies. In a sense, all those newspaper plays and movies were already about Hearst’s kind of corrupt, manic journalism.
The toughest-minded, the most satirical of the thirties pictures often featured newspaper settings, or, at least, reporters—especially the “screwball” comedies, which had some resemblances to later “black” comedy and current “freaky” comedy but had a very different spirit. A newspaper picture meant a contemporary picture in an American setting, usually a melodrama with crime and political corruption and suspense and comedy and romance. In 1931, a title like “Five Star Final” or “Scandal Sheet” signalled the public that the movie would be a tough modern talkie, not a tearjerker with sound. Just to touch a few bases, there was “The Front Page” itself, in 1931, with Pat O’Brien as the reporter and Adolphe Menjou as Walter Burns; Lee Tracy as the gossip columnist in “Blessed Event” and as the press agent in “Bombshell”; Clark Gable as the reporter in “It Happened One Night”; Paul Muni giving advice to the lovelorn in “Hi, Nellie”; Spencer Tracy as the editor in “Libeled Lady”; Stuart Erwin as the correspondent in “Viva Villa!”; Jean Harlow stealing the affections of a newspaperman from girl reporter Loretta Young in “Platinum Blonde”; Jean Arthur as the girl reporter in “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town”; a dozen pictures, at least, with George Bancroft as a Walter Howey-style bullying editor; all those half-forgotten pictures with reporter teams—Fredric March and Virginia Bruce, or Joel McCrea and Jean Arthur, or Loretta Young and Tyrone Power (“Love Is News”); Cary Grant as the editor and Joan Bennett as the reporter in “Wedding Present”; and then Cary Grant as Walter Burns in “His Girl Friday,” with Rosalind Russell as the reporter; and then Cary Grant and James Stewart (who had been a foreign correspondent in “Next Time We Love”) both involved with a newsmagazine in “The Philadelphia Story,” in 1940. Which takes us right up to “Citizen Kane,” the biggest newspaper picture of them all—the picture that ends with the introduction of the cast and a reprise of the line “I think it would be fun to run a newspaper.”
After years of swapping stories about Howey and the other werewolves and the crooked, dirty press, Mankiewicz found himself on story-swapping terms with the power behind it all, Hearst himself. When he had been in Hollywood only a short time, he met Marion Davies and Hearst through his friendship with Charles Lederer, a writer, then in his early twenties, whom Ben Hecht had met and greatly admired in New York when Lederer was still in his teens. Lederer, a child prodigy, who had entered college at thirteen, got to know Mankiewicz, the MacArthurs, Moss Hart, Benchley, and their friends at about the same time or shortly after he met Hecht, and was immediately accepted into a group considerably older than he was. Lederer was Marion Davies’ nephew—the son of her sister Reine, who had been in operetta and musical comedy. In Hollywood, Charles Lederer’s life seems to have revolved around his aunt, whom he adored. (Many others adored her also, though “Citizen Kane” was to give the world a different—and false—impression.) She was childless, and Lederer was very close to her; he spent a great deal of his time at her various dwelling places, and took his friends to meet both her and Hearst. The world of letters being small and surprising, Charles Lederer was among those who worked on the adaptation of “The Front Page” to the screen in 1931 and again when it was remade as “His Girl Friday” in 1940, and, the world being even smaller than that, Lederer married Orson Welles’ ex-wife, Virginia Nicholson Welles, in 1940, at San Simeon. (She married two prodigies in succession; the marriage to Welles had lasted five years and produced a daughter.)
Hearst was so fond of Lederer that on the evening of the nuptials he broke his rule of one cocktail to guests before dinner and no hard liquor thereafter. A guest who gulped the cocktail down was sometimes able to swindle another, but this is the only occasion that I can find recorded on which Hearst dropped the rule—a rule that Marion Davies customarily eased by slipping drinks to desperate guests before Hearst joined them but that nevertheless made it possible for Hearst to receive, and see at their best, some of the most talented alcoholics this country has ever produced. Not all writers are attracted to the rich and powerful, but it’s a defining characteristic of journalists to be drawn to those who live at the center of power. Even compulsive drinkers like Mankiewicz and Dorothy Parker were so fascinated by the great ménage of Hearst and his consort—and the guest lists of the world-famous—that they managed to stay relatively sober for the evenings at Marion Davies’ beach house (Colleen Moore described it as “the largest house on the beach—and I mean the beach from San Diego to the Canadian border”) and the weekends at San Simeon.
If “Kane” has the same love-hate as “The Front Page,” the same joyous infatuation with the antics of the unprincipled press, it’s because Mankiewicz, like Hecht and MacArthur, revelled in the complexities of corruption. And Hearst’s life was a spectacle. For short periods, this was intoxication enough. A man like Hearst seems to embody more history than other people do; in his company a writer may feel that he has been living in the past and on the outskirts and now he’s living in the dangerous present, right where the decisions are really made.
Hearst represented a new type of power. He got his first newspaper in 1887, when he was twenty-four, by asking his father for it, and, in the next three decades, when, for the first time, great masses of people became literate, he added more and more papers, until, with his empire of thirty newspapers and fifteen magazines, he was the most powerful journalist and publisher in the world. He had brought the first comic strips to America in 1892, and his battling with Pulitzer a few years later over a cartoon character named the Yellow Kid gave rise to the term “yellow journalism.” Because there was no tradition of responsibility in this new kind of popular journalism, which was almost a branch of show business, Hearst knew no restraints; perhaps fortunately, he was unguided. Ultimately, he was as purposeless about his power as the craziest of the Roman emperors. His looting of the treasures of the world for his castle at San Simeon symbolized his imperial status. Being at his table was being at court, and the activities of the notables who were invited there were slavishly chronicled in the Hearst papers.
The new social eminence of the Mankiewiczes, who sometimes visited San Simeon for as long as ten days at a time, can be charted from Louella Parsons’ columns. By the end of 1928, Louella was announcing Mankiewicz’s writing assignments with a big bold headline at the top of the column, and was printing such items as:
The fourth note looks rather naked now, all by itself on the desk. It says, simply:
“Write piece for New Yorker on reaching thirty-fifth birthday. No central idea. Just flit from paragraph to paragraph.”
People who complain that my work is slipshod would be a little surprised to find that I just am not always satisfied with the first thing I put down. I’m changing that thirty-fifth to fortieth right now.
“On Approaching Forty” didn’t come out in The New Yorker; it appeared in the Hollywood Reporter.
Ambivalence was the most common “literary” emotion of the screenwriters of the thirties, as alienation was to become the most common “literary” emotion of the screenwriters of the sixties. The thirties writers were ambivalently nostalgic about their youth as reporters, journalists, critics, or playwrights, and they glorified the hard-drinking, cynical newspaperman. They were ambivalent about Hollywood, which they savaged and satirized whenever possible. Hollywood paid them so much more money than they had ever earned before, and the movies reached so many more people than they had ever reached before, that they were contemptuous of those who hadn’t made it on their scale at the same time that they hated themselves for selling out. They had gone to Hollywood as a paid vacation from their playwriting or journalism, and screenwriting became their only writing. The vacation became an extended drunken party, and while they were there in the debris of the long morning after, American letters passed them by. They were never to catch up; nor were American movies ever again to have in their midst a whole school of the richest talents of a generation.
We in the audience didn’t have to wake up afterward to how good those films of the thirties were; in common with millions of people, I enjoyed them while they were coming out. They were immensely popular. But I did take them for granted. There was such a steady flow of bright comedy that it appeared to be a Hollywood staple, and it didn’t occur to me that those films wouldn’t go on being made. It didn’t occur to me that it required a special gathering of people in a special atmosphere to produce that flow, and that when those people stopped enjoying themselves those pictures couldn’t be made. And I guess it didn’t occur to older, more experienced people, either, because for decades everybody went on asking why Hollywood wasn’t turning out those good, entertaining comedies anymore.
By the end of the thirties, the jokes had soured. The comedies of the forties were heavy and pushy, straining for humor, and the comic impulse was misplaced or lost; they came out of a different atmosphere, a different feeling. The comic spirit of the thirties had been happily self-critical about America, the happiness born of the knowledge that in no other country were movies so free to be self-critical. It was the comedy of a country that didn’t yet hate itself. Though it wasn’t until the sixties that the self-hatred became overt in American life and American movies, it started to show, I think, in the phony, excessive, duplicit use of patriotism by the rich, guilty liberals of Hollywood in the war years.
In the forties, a socially conscious film historian said to me, “You know, Paramount never made a good movie,” and I brought up the names of some Paramount movies—”Easy Living” and “Trouble in Paradise” and lovely trifles like “Midnight”—and, of course, I couldn’t make my point, because those movies weren’t what was thought of in the forties as a good movie. I knew I wouldn’t get anywhere at all if I tried to cite “Million Dollar Legs” or “Mississippi,” or pictures with the Marx Brothers or Mae West; I would be told they weren’t even movies. Though Paramount made some elegant comedies in the “Continental” style, many of the best Paramount pictures were like revues—which was pretty much the style of the Broadway theatre they’d come out of, and was what I liked about them. They entertained you without trying to change your life, yet didn’t congratulate you for being a slobbering bag of mush, either. But by the forties these were considered “escapist entertainment,” and that was supposed to be bad. Many of the thirties comedies, especially the Paramount ones, weren’t even “artistic” or “visual” movies—which is why they look so good on television now. They also sound good, because what that historian thought of as their irresponsibility is so much more modern than the sentimentalities of the war years. What was believed in was implicit in the styles of the heroes and heroines and in the comedy targets; the writers had an almost aristocratic disdain for putting beliefs into words. In the forties, the writers convinced themselves that they believed in everything, and they kept putting it all into so many bad words. It’s no wonder the movies had no further use for a Groucho or a Mae West; one can imagine what either of them might have done to those words.
It’s common to blame the McCarthyism of the fifties and the removal of blacklisted writers for the terrible, flat writing in American movies of recent years, but the writers might have recovered from McCarthyism (they might even have stood up to it) if they hadn’t been destroyed as writers long before. The writing that had given American talkies their special flavor died in the war, killed not in battle but in the politics of Stalinist “anti-Fascism.” For the writers, Hollywood was just one big crackup, and for most of them it took a political turn. The lost-in-Hollywood generation of writers, trying to clean themselves of guilt for their wasted years and their irresponsibility as writers, became political in the worst way—became a special breed of anti-Fascists. The talented writers, the major ones as well as the lightweight yet entertaining ones, went down the same drain as the clods—drawn into it, often, by bored wives, less successful brothers. They became naïvely, hysterically pro-Soviet; they ignored Stalin’s actual policies, because they so badly needed to believe in something. They had been so smart, so gifted, and yet they hadn’t been able to beat Hollywood’s contempt for the writer. (Walter Wanger had put twenty-seven of them to work in groups in succession on the script of Vincent Sheehan’s “Personal History.”) They lived in the city where Irving Thalberg was enshrined; Thalberg, the saint of M-G-M, had rationalized Mayer’s system of putting teams of writers to work simultaneously and in relays on the same project. It had been lunatic before, but Thalberg made it seem mature and responsible to fit writers into an assembly-line method that totally alienated them and took away their last shreds of pride. And most of the Algonquin group had been in Hollywood so long they weren’t even famous anymore.
Talented people have rarely had the self-control to flourish in the Hollywood atmosphere of big money and conflicting pressures. The talented—especially those who weren’t using their talents to full capacity—have become desperate, impatient, unreliable, self-destructive, and also destructive, and so there has always been some validity in the businessman’s argument that he couldn’t afford to take chances on “geniuses.” Thalberg didn’t play around with a man like Mankiewicz; after throwing him off “A Night at the Opera,” he didn’t use him again. The writers who had become accustomed to being assembly-line workers were ready to believe it when, in the forties, they were told that, like factory workers, they were “part of the team on the assembly line” and needed “that strengthening of the spirit which comes from identity with the labor of others.” Like the producers, the Screen Writers Guild respected discipline and responsibility, but though the businessmen had never been able to organize people of talent—producers like Thalberg just kept discarding them—the union ideologues knew how. The talented rarely become bureaucrats, but the mediocre had put down roots in Hollywood—it doesn’t take long in Los Angeles, the only great city that is purely modern, that hasn’t even an architectural past in the nineteenth century. In the forties, the talented merged with the untalented and became almost indistinguishable from them, and the mediocre have been writing movies ever since. When the good writers tried to regain their self-respect by becoming political activists in the Stalinist style, it was calamitous to talent; the Algonquin group’s own style was lost as their voice blended into the preachy, self-righteous chorus.
The comedy writers who had laughed at cant now learned to write it and were rehabilitated as useful citizens of the community of mediocrity. It was just what the newly political congratulated themselves on—their constructive, uplifting approach—that killed comedy. When they had written frivolously, knowing that they had no control over how their writing would be used, or buried, or rewritten, they may have failed their own gifts and the dreams of their youth, but the work they turned out had human dimensions; they were working at less than full capacity, but they were still honest entertainers. Their humor was the humor of those trapped by human weakness as well as by “the system,” and this was basic comedy—like the jokes and camaraderie of Army men. But when they became political in that morally superior way of people who are doing something for themselves but pretending it’s for others, their self-righteousness was insufferable. They may have told lies in the themes and plots of the thirties comedies, but they didn’t take their own lies seriously, they didn’t believe their own lies, the way they did in the forties. In the forties, the Screen Writers Guild and the Hollywood Writers Mobilization (for wartime morale-building) held conferences at which “responsible” writers brought the irresponsibles into line. The irresponsibles were told they were part of an army and must “dedicate their creative abilities to the winning of the war.” And, in case they failed to understand the necessity for didactic, “positive” humor, there were panels and seminars that analyzed jokes and pointed out which ones might do harm. It was explained to the writers that “catch-as-catch-can,” “no-holds-barred” comedy was a thing of the past. “A very funny line may make black-market dealings seem innocent and attractive,” they were told, and “Respect for officers must be maintained at all times, in any scene, in any situation.”
Show-business people are both giddy and desperately, sincerely intense. When Stalinism was fashionable, movie people became Stalinists, the way they later became witches and warlocks. Apparently, many of the Hollywood Stalinists didn’t realize they were taking any risks; they performed propaganda services for the various shifts in Russia’s foreign policy and, as long as the needs of American and Russian policy coincided, this took the form of super-patriotism. When the war was over and the Cold War began, history left them stranded, and McCarthy moved in on them. The shame of McCarthyism was not only “the shame of America” but the shame of a bunch of newly rich people who were eager to advise the world on moral and political matters and who, faced with a test, informed on their friends—and, as Orson Welles put it, not even to save their lives but to save their swimming pools. One might think that whatever they had gained emotionally from their activity they would have lost when they informed on each other, but it doesn’t seem to have always worked that way. They didn’t change their ideas when they recanted before the House Un-American Activities Committee; they merely gave in and then were restored to themselves. And they often seem to regard it not as their weakness but as their martyrdom. Show-business Stalinism is basically not political but psychological; it’s a fashionable form of hysteria and guilt that is by now not so much pro-Soviet as just abusively anti-American. America is their image of Hell (once again, because of Vietnam, they’re in a popular position), and they go on being “political” in the same way, holding the same faith, and for the same reasons, as in the late thirties and the forties. The restoration there is fairly general. In Hollywood recently, a man who used to be “involved” told me he wanted to become more active again, and added, “But, you know, I’m scared. The people who are urging me to do more are the same ones who ratted on me last time.”
Mankiewicz was too well-informed politically to become a Communist Party-liner. Because he didn’t support this line, he was—and only in part jokingly—considered a “reactionary” by the activists of the Screen Writers Guild. Yet he went on to write the movie they point to with pride in Hollywood, the movie they all seem to feel demonstrates what can be done and what movies should be doing, and it’s their all-time favorite because they understand it—and correctly—as a leftist film. Its leftism is, however, the leftism of the twenties and early thirties, before the left became moralistic. There were other expressions of the tough spirit of the thirties that came after the thirties were over. There may be a little of it in the newspaper film of the fifties “Sweet Smell of Success,” but the ambivalence there is harsher, grimmer, more artistically “serious” than it was in the thirties; there’s some in the happy mockery of Hollywood in “Singin’ in the Rain,” which takes off from Kaufman and Hart’s “Once in a Lifetime,” and in the films of Preston Sturges, who alone somehow managed to stay funny and tart. The only writer of this whole group who became a director with an individual style, Sturges kept American comedy alive singlehanded through the mawkish forties. Maybe he was able to because he was a cynic and so politically baroque that he wasn’t torn by doubts and guilts. The political show in Hollywood in the forties was just one more crazy scene to him; he’d grown up rich and eccentric in Europe, the son of that expatriate lady (called Mary in “The Loves of Isadora”) who gave Isadora Duncan the fatal scarf.
But Mankiewicz climaxed an era in “Kane.” He wrote a big movie that is untarnished by sentimentality, and it may be the only big biographical movie ever made in this country of which that can be said. “Kane” is unsanctimonious; it is without scenes of piety, masochism, or remorse, without “truths”—in that period when the screenwriters were becoming so politically “responsible” that they were using all the primitive devices to sell their messages, and movies once again became full of blind beggars, and omens of doom, and accidental death as punishment for moral and sexual infractions, and, of course, Maria Ouspenskaya seeing into people’s hearts—the crone as guru.
Orson Welles wasn’t around when “Citizen Kane” was written, early in 1940. Mankiewicz, hobbling about on a broken leg in a huge cast, was packed off—away from temptation—to Mrs. Campbell’s Guest Ranch, in Victorville, California, sixty-five miles from Los Angeles, to do the script. He had a nurse and a secretary to watch over him and John Houseman to keep him working, and they all lived there for about three months—in a combination dude ranch and rest home, where liquor was forbidden and unavailable—until the first draft of “Citizen Kane,” called simply and formidably “American,” was completed.
That insurance-company doctor who refused to accept Mankiewicz as a risk back in 1927 had no need to be prophetic. Ben Hecht once described a summer earlier in the twenties when he and his wife and Charles MacArthur were living in a borrowed house near Woodstock, New York, with no money, and Harpo, Groucho, Chico, and Zeppo Marx and their wives, sweethearts, and children came to stay, and then Herman Mankiewicz arrived, carrying two suitcases. “He had decided to spend his vacation from the New York Times drama section with us,” Hecht wrote. “He had not been allowed to bring any money with him because of Sara’s certainty that he would spend it on liquor, and thus impair the influence of country air and sunshine. . . . Herman’s larger suitcase contained sixteen bottles of Scotch and nothing else.” A few weeks later, Hecht and MacArthur went into New York to try to sell a play they’d just written, and encountered Mankiewicz, who, having sent his wife and children out of town to escape the heat, was “occupying Prince Bibesco’s grand suite in the Plaza Hotel while his Highness capered in Long Island.” Hecht went on, “We moved in with him, there being no rent to pay. We discovered, while helping Herman to undress the first night, that his torso was bound with yards of adhesive tape. He had slipped while trying to get out of the bathtub and lamed his back. When Herman was asleep, MacArthur and I rolled him on his stomach and with an indelible pencil wrote ardent and obscene love messages on his taping. We signed them Gladys and chuckled over the impending moment in Far Rockaway when Herman would undress before his keen-eyed Sara.”
Not only was Mankiewicz alcoholic and maniacally accident-prone; he was a gambler, constantly in debt. There was a sequence in a thirties movie about a gambling newspaperman that was based on the way the other writers at Paramount used to line up with him when he got his check on Friday afternoon and walk with him to the bank so they could get back some of the money he’d borrowed from them during the week. His old friends say that he would bet from sheer boredom; when he ran out of big sporting events, he would bet on anything—on high-school football games or whether it would rain. He got to the point where he was bored with just betting; he wanted the stakes to be dangerously high. He once explained, “It’s not fun gambling if I lose two thousand and just write a check for it. What’s thrilling is to make out a check for fifteen thousand dollars knowing there’s not a penny in the bank.” James Thurber referred to him as an “incurable compulsive gambler.” He described how Mankiewicz went to a psychiatrist to see if anything could be done about it. “I can’t cure you of gambling,” the analyst told him on his last visit, “but I can tell you why you do it.”
By the late thirties, Mankiewicz had just about run out of studios to get fired from. His friends would get him jobs and he would lose them—sometimes in spectacular ways that became part of Hollywood legend. Perhaps the best-known is his exit from Columbia Pictures. In his biography of Harry Cohn, who was then the head of the studio, Bob Thomas describes it this way:
The most famous incident in the Columbia dining room concerned an erratic genius named Herman J. Mankiewicz. . . . The freewheeling world of journalism seemed better suited to his temperament than did Hollywood. He possessed two failings that were inimical to the autocratic studio domains: he drank, and he was scornful of his bosses.
These faculties tumbled him from the position of a major screenwriter, and he had difficulty finding jobs. His agent, Charles Feldman, proposed a post at Columbia. Cohn was interested, since he enjoyed hiring bargain talent discarded by the major studios. . . . Cohn agreed to employ him at $750 a week.
“I want to make good,” said Mankiewicz, when he reported to William Perlberg, then Columbia’s executive producer.
“Fine,” said the producer. . . . “But . . . don’t go in the executive dining room. You know what will happen if you tangle with Cohn.”
Mankiewicz concurred. . . . His work habits were exemplary, and he produced many pages a day. But . . . his office was on the third floor, near the door to the executive dining room. As Riskin, Swerling, and other fellow-writers emerged after lunch, he could hear them laughing over wisecracks and jokes that had been told inside. Mankiewicz himself was considered one of Hollywood’s premier wits and raconteurs, and he rankled over his banishment.
One day Perlberg entered the dining room and was startled to find Mankiewicz sitting at the end of the table. The writer held a napkin to his mouth and promised, “I won’t say a word.”
When Cohn entered the room, he gave Mankiewicz a warm greeting, then assumed his monarchial position at the head of the table.
Cohn began the conversation: “Last night I saw the lousiest picture I’ve seen in years.”
He mentioned the title, and one of the more courageous of his producers spoke up: “Why, I saw that picture at the Downtown Paramount, and the audience howled over it. Maybe you should have seen it with an audience.”
“That doesn’t make any difference,” Cohn replied. “When I’m alone in a projection room, I have a foolproof device for judging whether a picture is good or bad. If my fanny squirms, it’s bad. If my fanny doesn’t squirm, it’s good. It’s as simple as that.”
There was a momentary silence, which was filled by Mankiewicz at the end of the table: “Imagine—the whole world wired to Harry Cohn’s ass!”
Tower Road was where the Mankiewiczes lived and the Mercury group gathered. The Dog-Faced Boy is, of course, Orson Welles (Cocteau once described him as “a dog who has broken loose from his chain and gone to sleep on the flower bed”), and the Mickey Finns were a medical concoction that was supposed to make Mankiewicz hate alcohol. It failed. The secretary, Mrs. Rita Alexander (she lent her name to the character of Susan Alexander), recalls that during her first week, before Sara Mankiewicz had had a chance to give her a briefing, Mankiewicz persuaded her to take him into the town of Victorville, where he could get a drink. She withstood his wiles after that. He really wasn’t in condition to do much drinking; the broken bones included a hip break, and he was in such poor condition that even eating presented problems. Mrs. Alexander recalls spoon-feeding him bicarbonate of soda, and recalls his courtly, formal apologies for the belches that rocked the room.
There are monsters, and there are also sacred monsters; both Welles and Mankiewicz deserve places in the sacred-monster category. Some writers on film—particularly in England—blithely say that Kane wasn’t based on Hearst, using as evidence statements that Welles made to the press in early 1941, when he was trying to get the picture released. But those who think Louella Parsons got the mistaken idea that the picture was about Hearst don’t understand what kind of man the young Welles was. Welles and Mankiewicz wanted to do something startling, something that would cap the invasion of the Martians—which had, after all, panicked only the boobs, and inadvertently at that, though Welles now makes it sound deliberate. This time, he and Mankiewicz meant to raise cain. The pun is surely theirs, and Hearst had walked right into it; he was so fond of a story called “Cain and Mabel,” which he’d bought and produced as a Cosmopolitan Picture back in 1924, that he remade it late in 1936, at Warners’, starring Clark Gable and Marion Davies. It had been one of her last pictures before her retirement. Cain and Mabel—it was a perfect description of Hearst and Marion. In 1960, when Welles was interviewed on British television, he said, “Kane isn’t really founded on Hearst in particular.” I suppose he was feeling rather expansive at that moment, and it may have seemed to limit his importance if his Kane had been based on anyone “in particular.” In the same interview, he said, “You asked me did Mr. Hearst try to stop it. He didn’t. . . . He was like Kane in that he wouldn’t have stooped to such a thing.” This was rather droll, but Welles seemed to mean it. He didn’t seem to know much about Hearst anymore; probably he’d forgotten. One may also fairly conclude that Welles, with that grandeur which he seems to have taken over from the theatre into his personal life, was elevating Hearst, lending Hearst some of his own magnitude. More characteristically, however, his grandeur is double-edged, as in this typical statement on Gregg Toland:
I had a great advantage not only in the real genius of my cameraman but in the fact that he, like all men who are masters of a craft, told me at the outset that there was nothing about camerawork that any intelligent being couldn’t learn in half a day. And he was right.
Welles was thus telling us that he learned all there was to know about camerawork in half a day. What, one wonders, was the craft that Toland needed to master? Welles, like Hearst, and like most very big men, is capable of some very small gestures. And so was Mankiewicz, who brought his younger, more stable brother, Joe, out to Hollywood and helped him get started, but, as soon as Joe had some success, began behaving atrociously, referring to him as “my idiot brother.”
Mankiewicz’s ambivalence was generally on a higher level, however. There are many different kinds of senses of humor, and the one that sometimes comes through Mankiewicz anecdotes is the perverse soul of Kane himself. There is, for example, the story that Ezra Goodman tells in “The Fifty Year Decline and Fall of Hollywood.” Hollywood was not often elegant and correct, but the producer Arthur Hornblow, Jr., was known for the finesse of his social functions. At a dinner party that he gave for Hollywood notables, Herman Mankiewicz drank too much and threw up on the table. “A deadly hush descended over the assembled guests. . . . Mankiewicz broke the silence himself: ‘It’s all right, Arthur; the white wine came up with the fish.’ ”
The man who in those circumstances could put his host down was a fit companion for Welles. They were big eaters, big talkers, big spenders, big talents; they were not men of what is ordinarily called “good character.” They were out to get not only Hearst but each other. The only religious remark that has ever been attributed to Mankiewicz was recorded on the set of “Citizen Kane”: Welles walked by, and Mankiewicz muttered, “There, but for the grace of God, goes God.”
Herman Mankiewicz didn’t—to be exact—write “Citizen Kane”; he dictated it. The screenwriters may have felt like whores and they may have been justified in that feeling, but they were certainly well-paid whores. In New York, they hadn’t had secretaries, but the movie business was mass culture’s great joke on talent. The affectation of “Look, no hands” became the literal truth. Mankiewicz dictated the script while the nurse watched over him and John Houseman stood by in attendance. This was a cut-rate job—Mankiewicz was getting $500 a week for his ghostly labors—but it was still in the royal tradition of screenwriting. Outside the movie business, there has probably never been a writer in the history of the world who got this kind of treatment. There was an urgency about it: Welles and most of the Mercury Theatre company were in Hollywood doing their weekly radio shows and waiting while this odd little group spent the spring of 1940 in Victorville preparing the script for Orson Welles’ début in films.
Welles had come to Hollywood the previous July in a burst of publicity, but his first two film projects hadn’t got under way. Within a few months of his arrival, he was being jeered at because nothing had happened. Although his contract with R.K.O. gave him freedom from interference, Schaefer and his legal staff had to approve the project and clear the shooting script and, of course, the budget. It had been agreed that his first project would be Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” which he had already done as a radio drama. He was to play both Marlow and Kurtz, the two leading roles, and it was reported in the trade press that he was working on the script with John Houseman and Herbert Drake, who was the Mercury’s press agent. In the latter part of 1939, Welles brought actors out from New York and shot long test sequences, but the budget looked too high to the poverty-stricken studio, and the production was repeatedly postponed. He decided to do something while he was waiting—something that he could start on right away, to get the Mercury actors on the R.K.O. payroll—and he hit on a spy thriller with a political theme: “The Smiler with the Knife,” from the novel by Nicholas Blake (C. Day Lewis). Welles adapted the book himself—“in seven days,” according to the trade press—but this project was abandoned almost at once because of differences with Schaefer over casting. (Welles wanted to use Lucille Ball, then a contract player at R.K.O., in the lead, and Schaefer didn’t think she could carry the picture. As the whole world knows, she wound up owning the studio, but Schaefer wasn’t necessarily wrong; she never did carry a picture.) There was still hope for “Heart of Darkness”—and a lot of money had already been spent on it—but things seemed to be falling apart for the Mercury group. By the end of 1939, Welles was desperate for a subject that would be acceptable to R.K.O. The movie plans were up in the air, and there was dissension within the Mercury group about staying on in Hollywood with nothing definite in sight to work on. Some of the actors left to take jobs elsewhere, and some were beginning to get film roles—a development that upset Welles, because he wanted them to be “new faces” in his first film.
A policy meeting was arranged to discuss the failing fortunes of the group and to decide whether to keep them all in Los Angeles or send some of them back to New York. The more or less administrative heads of the Mercury Theatre met for dinner in an upper room at Chasen’s. The group included Welles; Houseman, who had founded the Mercury Theatre with him; two all-purpose assistants, Richard Wilson and William Alland; the press agent, Drake; and several others. Houseman argued that the actors should return to New York, but nothing had been settled by the time the coffee and brandy arrived, and then Welles, in a sudden access of rage, shouted that Houseman wanted to desert him, that Houseman had always been against him, and he threw the coffee warmers—full of Sterno canned heat—at Houseman. He did not throw them very precisely, it seems; he threw them not so much with intent to hit as in Houseman’s general direction. Dave Chasen, having been summoned by a waiter, opened the door, and, with the aplomb he had used back in the thirties in vaudeville, when he was the stooge of the comedian Joe Cook, he took one look—a curtain was on fire by then—and closed the door. The men in the room stamped out the fire, and Houseman went home and sent Welles a letter of resignation. The partnership was ended, and a week later Houseman left for New York.
Welles’ tantrum and how it ended the partnership that had created the Mercury Theatre was the talk of the actors who gathered around Mankiewicz’s bed, and it must have registered on Mankiewicz in a special way: it must have practically thrust on him the recognition of an emotional link between Welles and William Randolph Hearst, whose tantrums had been the stuff of legend among newspapermen for half a century, and whose occasional demonstrations of childishness were the gossip of guests at San Simeon. A week or two after the Chasen’s dinner party, Mankiewicz proposed to Welles that they make a “prismatic” movie about the life of a man seen from several different points of view. Although Mankiewicz had been talking to friends for years about what a movie Hearst’s life would make, his first suggestions for the “prismatic” movie were Dillinger and, when Welles was cool to that, Aimee Semple McPherson. Only after Welles had rejected that, too, and after they had discussed the possibilities in the life of Dumas, did he propose Hearst. Mankiewicz must have been stalling and playing games to lead Welles on, because although he was interested in both Dillinger and Aimee Semple McPherson, and subsequently did prepare scripts on them, this movie had to be a starring vehicle for Welles, and what major role could Welles play in the life of either Dillinger or Aimee? From what Mankiewicz told friends at the time, when he sprang the name Hearst, Welles leaped at it.
Welles had grown up hearing stories about Hearst from Dr. Maurice Bernstein, who was his guardian after his parents died. Dr. Bernstein was a good friend of Ashton Stevens, who had originally been the drama critic on Hearst’s flagship paper, the San Francisco Examiner, and had gone on to work for Hearst in Chicago. Welles himself was a Hearst-press “discovery;” it was Ashton Stevens, whom Dr. Bernstein got in touch with, who had publicized the nineteen-year-old Orson Welles when he produced “Hamlet” on a vacant second floor in Illinois. But Welles, being a knowledgeable young man, would have known a great deal about Hearst even without this personal connection, for Hearst was the unifying hatred of all liberals and leftists. Welles, with his sense of the dramatic, would have known at once what a sensational idea a movie about Hearst was. Aimee and Dillinger just didn’t have the dimensions that Hearst had; Hearst was even right for Welles physically. Welles and Mankiewicz must have enjoyed thinking what a scandal a movie about him would make. Mankiewicz didn’t need to have misgivings about repercussions, because the risks would all be Welles’. Schaefer had signed Welles up to a widely publicized four-way contract as producer, director, writer, and actor. It was understood that he would take the credit for the script, just as he did for the scripts of the radio plays. His R.K.O. contract stated that “the screenplay for each picture shall be written by Mr. Orson Welles,” and Welles probably took this stipulation as no more than his due—a necessity of his station. He probably accepted the work that others did for him the way modern Presidents accept the work of speech-writers.
The title “American” suggests how Mankiewicz felt about the project. Several years before, in 1933, his friend and drinking companion Preston Sturges had written a big one, an original called “The Power and the Glory,” which, when it was produced, with Spencer Tracy and Colleen Moore in the leading roles, made Tracy a star. “The Power and the Glory” was about a ruthless railroad tycoon who fails in his personal life, and it was told in flashbacks and narration from his funeral. It was an impressive picture, and it was lauded in terms similar to those later used about “Kane.” “Its subject,” William Troy wrote in the Nation, “is the great American Myth, and its theme is futility.” The ballyhoo included putting a bronze tablet in the New York theatre where it opened to commemorate “the first motion picture in which narratage was used as a method of telling a dramatic story.” (Hollywood, big on ballyhoo but short on real self-respect, failed to transfer the nitrate negative to safety stock, and modern prints of “The Power and the Glory” are tattered remnants.) Not only is the tycoon treated ambivalently by Sturges but in the boyhood sequence he is injured through his own arrogance, so that he acquires a jagged, lightninglike scar on his hand—the mark of Cain. The idea of the big-businessman as a Cain figure was basic to this genre, which had become popular in the Depression thirties, when many business giants of the twenties were revealed to be swindlers, or, at the very least, ruthless. In another 1933 film, “I Loved a Woman,” a tycoon’s mistress sang at the Chicago Opera House. (It was where the tycoons’ mistresses did sing in the twenties.) In 1937, Mankiewicz himself had done a trial run on the tycoon theme (with Edward Arnold as a lumber baron) in “John Meade’s Woman.” To do Hearst, a much more dangerous man—the only tycoon who was also a demagogue—in a technique similar to Sturges’s but from several different points of view would make a really big picture.
At the time the movie came out, Mankiewicz’s contribution to the film was generally known. The screen credit said, “Written by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles.” The Hollywood Reporter simplified the credit to “Written by Herman Mankiewicz;” Burns Mantle, in his newspaper column, referred to Mankiewicz’s having written it; and, of course, Ben Hecht explained to the readers of PM, “This movie was not written by Orson Welles. It is the work of Herm | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 69 | https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/shop/thriller/citizen-kane-original/ | en | Citizen Kane (Original) | [
"https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dvd-planet-store-pakistan.png",
"https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dvd-planet-store-pakistan.png",
"https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/5051892201209.png",
"https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/20... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"www.facebook.com"
] | null | Newspaper magnate, Charles Foster Kane is taken from his mother as a boy and made the ward of a rich industrialist. As a result, every well-meaning, tyrannical or self-destructive move he makes for the rest of his life appears in some way to be a reaction to that deeply wounding event.This is 100% Genuine product.
Region: 2
Important: A lot of DVD players around now are region free - which play any DVD region. It completely depends on what DVD player you have. We actually have a number of regular customers based in the US, Canada and Australia who never have problems with our region 2 discs. | en | //www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/favicon.ico | DVD PLANET STORE | https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/shop/thriller/citizen-kane-original/ | Product Availability
Please note that a product being listed on our website does not necessarily mean it is in stock and readily available for order. Our catalog is built as a reference for our customers, while we do our best to sync our in-stock items on our website. The items that are not released yet, or not out on DVD / Blu-ray are indeed unavailable, and that is what we would tell our customers if the requests ever come in.
Our aim is to build a comprehensive listing of movies and TV shows available to date.
Since, we do not take payments online at this time, there is 0% risk in placing order for movies you like on our website. Our representative will get in touch with the customer with the availability of the items when an order is placed.
Notice and Takedown policy
As a professional and reputable online store, DVD Planet Store is fully committed to the twin issues of copyright and trademarks. Please read our notice and takedown policy by clicking here.
Best Effort Policy
Should an item be unavailable, we would inform you if it was possible to provide an on-Demand DVD-R version of the requested item, but we offer no guarantees. Many DVD stores now offer MOD service, and so do we to keep a competitive edge. We would not make any profit out of such sale. The price of the items would only cover the operational / raw material / shipping costs; and would be sold for personal use only.
Processing
Our processing time is 1-2 days for in-stock items for domestic orders. For MOD requests, processing time could be up to 1 week on average. We do our best to fulfill orders as quickly as we can. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 68 | https://studylib.net/doc/27279265/david-a-cook-a-history-of-narrative-film-0pdf-compress | en | 0pdf compress | [
"https://s2.studylib.net/store/data/027031900_1-8fd0b12b49c63e3628d4ee8be37b15dc-300x300.png",
"https://s3.studylib.net/store/data/025476758_1-167cd9737c3be7d1a1c42ffe564ce38b-300x300.png",
"https://s3.studylib.net/store/data/025346988_1-00cfd238ca6ec7e0625809f3c99d555f-300x300.png",
"https://s2.studylib.net/... | [] | [] | [
"Free essays",
"homework help",
"flashcards",
"research papers",
"book reports",
"term papers",
"history",
"science",
"politics"
] | null | [
"justin1772"
] | 2024-01-26T17:34:47+00:00 | Free essays, homework help, flashcards, research papers, book reports, term papers, history, science, politics | en | /apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png | studylib.net | https://studylib.net/doc/27279265/david-a-cook-a-history-of-narrative-film-0pdf-compress | Make a suggestion
Did you find mistakes in interface or texts? Or do you know how to improve StudyLib UI? Feel free to send suggestions. Its very important for us! | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 73 | http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviews/c/citizenkane.shtml | en | The DVD Journal: Citizen Kane | [
"http://www.dvdjournal.com/reviewimgs/c/citizenkane.jpg",
"http://www.dvdjournal.com/imgs/redstar.gif",
"http://www.dvdjournal.com/imgs/redstar.gif",
"http://www.dvdjournal.com/imgs/redstar.gif",
"http://www.dvdjournal.com/imgs/redstar.gif",
"http://www.dvdjournal.com/imgs/redstar.gif"
] | [] | [] | [
"Citizen Kane",
"Orson Welles",
"William Randolph Hearst",
"RKO",
"Warner Home Video",
"D. K. Holm",
"DVD",
"The DVD Journal",
"reviews",
"commentary",
"movies",
"cinema",
"film"
] | null | [] | null | Click here to read The DVD Journal's review of Citizen Kane. | null | Review by D. K. Holm
"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"
Tanya, Touch of Evil
"I've wasted the greater part of my life looking for money and trying to get along, trying to make my work from this terribly expensive paint box. I've spend too much energy on things that have nothing to do with making a movie. It's about two percent movie making and 98 per cent hustling. It's no way to spend a life."
Orson Welles, quoted at the end of The Battle over Citizen Kane
Thoughts on Citizen Kane, on the Occasion of its 60th Anniversary release on DVD, Considered as a Cinematic Statement on American Values of North v. South, of
blah blah blah. Just what we need. Another bloated, self-regarding, possessive, academic essay on Citizen Kane, one more attempt to grapple with the complexities of what is not only arguably the greatest American movie, but one of modern art's great mysteries. Instead, the key thing to say about the appearance of Citizen Kane on DVD is that it's here, and it's great. Warner Home Video (Warner and Ted Turner owning the rights of what was originally an RKO movie) has (finally, some would say) issued a two disc set of Citizen Kane, allowing that perennial list topper (AFI; Sight and Sound's decade poll) to be a part of everyone's DVD library, and doing so in a spectacular new digital transfer that appears flawless.
Personally, this reviewer couldn't even believe how good this transfer is. I doubted it, assumed that I was missing something, not detecting some flaw. So I showed the disc to a close colleague more expert in transfer technology. He, too, was stunned. We compared it to the old Criterion Laserdisc, the 50th anniversary release from 1991, and noted the damage on the source print but also how truly terrible the sound was for that disc. The improvements were startling. Citizen Kane, in a beautiful transfer, and with what the box calls "revitalized digital video audio from the highest quality surviving elements," has probably never looked or sounded so good.
So go buy it.
But that being said, the occasion of seeing Kane in a format that, mutatis mutandis, presents the film as close to the way it must have looked upon initial release does inspire some reflections on this masterpiece, a film that blends a great American story with the best of European stylistic influences. So protean is Citizen Kane that it is all things to all viewers. To Pauline Kael, it was a "shallow masterpiece," whatever that is (she never explained). To Martin Scorsese, "Kane was a picture that made you think anything was possible in film." To Jorge Luis Borges, it was a "labyrinth without a center." To Laura Mulvey in the BFI series, it's "anti-Hollywood."
What Citizen Kane is, though, is one of the great puzzle kits of 20th century art. Like Ulysses and Pale Fire in literature, or the movies L'avventura, Pulp Fiction, The Usual Suspects, and Memento, Kane is a work of art that though the surface seems clear enough actually contains mysteries, allusions, references, and unexplained or inexplicable moments that turn it into a Chinese boxyou can pull it apart yet it stays together. All these works of art bear fascinating cruxes that both keep the academics working overtime and yet also delight us as we experience them.
Citizen Kane as a movie movie
Take the delightful surface of the film, and its tricks and in-jokes. Knowing that director Welles was best known at the time as a radio personality, it is utterly delightful that upon Kane's first physical appearance, within the newsreel at the start of the film, we don't hear his voice. Instead he is presented in an "excerpt" from a silent newsreel. That Welles should withhold his marvelous voice bespeaks a playfulness with the audience that is going to be maintained throughout the rest of the film (and the rest of his career). The first sentence we actually hear Kane speak is in another newsreel excerpt while talking to a young reporter. "Don't believe everything you hear on the radio," he says, which for the informed (and who at the time of the film's release in 1941 couldn't be informed) was a loving jab at the "War of the Worlds" contretemps that got Welles to Hollywood in the first place.
Perhaps Mulvey is right. This is a film that is so unlike typical Hollywood movies that the title character is not actually truly introduced on the screen until 24 minutes into the picture, in a bravura moment climaxing a montage in which Kane, so to speak, steps from behind the curtain of a crushed-up newspaper. And then there are the succession of simply great visual moments, such as the stagehands offering their critique of Susan Alexander's singing at the end of a long (somewhat faked) crane shot. The dark, inky photography of Gregg Toland, which in many ways anticipated the noir look of the rest of the decade, is simply stunning, making the film as rich as ambrosia. As with the works of art listed above, the viewer can experience a delight so intense you don't know what to do with yourself, and you explode with ideas, observations, and emotions.
One of the paradoxes at the center of the film is that Welles and Toland wanted to make a "realistic" film. According to Frank Brady's biography of Welles, "he wanted the audience to see the film as they would 'reality' and not as though they were looking at a movie He wanted the viewer to enter the film, become a part of it, and remain there to its conclusion." Welles's and Toland's challenge was how to "achieve the realism and intense detail demanded by the probing, relentless camera work within the practicalities of a limited studio budget." The paradox is that, yes, they did create a "more realistic" movie, but one that is heralded as among the most baroque in American film history. What they thought was going to be documentary style realism actually proved to be a cinematic technique that drew attention to itself.
Yet the film is "realistic," much more realistic than any other non-documentary film at the time, and the reason is twofold, first by utilizing all that film can do to create the illusion of taking us into the consciousness of a human being, perhaps the one unique thing that cinema can do, but also by parodying accurately the media of the time (newsreels, radio, movies). The familiar makes us accept the strange.
Who wrote Citizen Kane?
The authorship of Kane has been a subject of academic debate at least since Kael, in her orchestrated surgical strike on the auteur theory, argued that Kane owed more to the snappy, reporter-influenced dialogue-heavy style of credited co-screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz than to Welles. A survey of the various books on Welles and Kane reveals little consensus. The most recent bio, the first of a Welles-hostile two-volume set by actor Simon Callow, takes the Kael line, laughing at the idea that Welles wrote a 300-page rough draft called John Citizen, USA, which Mankiewicz was suppose to work from. Callow notes that no one has ever seen this draft, suggesting that it is part of Welles's self-mythologizing (though it is certainly possible that Welles could have dictated a draft of his ideas for Mankiewicz). The most reliable account appears to be Robert Carringer's The Making of Citizen Kane, which goes into detail about who did what on the film, and notes when and where Welles has ceded authorship of parts of the film to Mankiewicz (the Rosebud trail, for example). And we forget now how much of Kane was taking from what was in the air, and some of the movies that may have influenced Kane that neither Welles nor Mankiewicz had anything to do with include Rebecca, Mad Love, Kitty Foyle (there's a snowball scene), The Power and the Glory, and the play, The Long Christmas Dinner.
But it's likely that Mankiewicz didn't really understand what Welles had in mind for the film. The "solution" to the crux of authorship is really found in the early drafts of the screenplay that Mankiewicz wrote while drying out in the desert, baby-sat by Welles associate John Houseman. In these drafts exists an alternate version of Kane, when it was called American. If this version had been shot, the viewer would have experienced some of the following moments:
"News on the March" footage of Kane's poor academic career, including expulsion from a German school with Jed Leland
Newsreel footage of Kane burned in effigy for publishing stories that may have led to a presidential assassination
Kane shown defrauded at the polls, not losing
A visit by Thatcher and another man to Kane, living in Italy, on the occasion of his 25th birthday, and noting the debauchery in which he lives
A scene between Kane and the editor of a rival paper
A montage on the rise of the Inquirer
A montage of his attacks on his wife's uncle, the President
Kane showing his son how to set type
Kane and his main competitor offering to buy each other out
Kane reading a history of journalism for ideas
Kane on his honeymoon
Kane meeting the President
Kane's wife telling him that she has known of his affair with Susan Alexander for a long time
Kane running into his father, and his father's new wife, a much younger woman at the opera, then attacking the man back at his hotel room, only to be pulled off by Jed Leland
Kane discovering Susan having an affair with a stable manager and having him killed
An around-the-world trip with Susan on a yacht
A Wild West costume ball at Xanadu
And a sequence in which Kane's son is killed while attempting to seize an armory in Washington, D. C., under the sway of a fascist group.
Too much! These scenes suggest that Mankiewicz was approaching the story as a conventional, and mediocre, biography, and also settling scores with the figure inspiring Kane, William Randolph Hearst. He seems not to have grasped that Welles was striving for an original shuffling of narrative segments that would rely on visuals more than dialogue, an approach that presented the story in a more condensed format. What seems most missing is the idea that Kane is observed from outside by others, that his story is told, with cunningly compiled distortions, by observers who in some ways didn't really know him at all. Citizen Kane is certainly one of the strangest films to come out of Hollywood. You could argue that it has a cold heart, that there's a lack at the center of the film, a missing female warmth, which we will get to in a second.
However, Mankiewicz did come up with Rosebud. Which, paradoxically, takes us to
In Defense of Rosebud
On the Criterion Laserdisc, Peter Bogdanovich claims that "Orson didn't like the whole Rosebud thing. He felt it was the one element in the picture that would date it most quickly." Welles called Rosebud "dollar-book Freud." I disagree. The Rosebud theme is much richer, more subtle than anything the Viennese quack could have come up with, and instead of dating the picture, Rosebud glues it together for one generation after another.
One of the key cruxes of the film is the question of what exactly Rosebud means. We ask this question even though we know that Welles & Co. were in part trying to show that you cannot reduce a man's mysteries to one thing. On the other hand, there is a solution to the "problem." It is actually found in Welles's next film, The Magnificent Ambersons. Throughout Welles's radio career, his most moving shows, such as his adaptation of "The Apple Tree," were about loss loss of a bucolic past, of a domestic happiness, of a quiet life. This theme doesn't seem to have anything to do with Welles's real life. It's just something he liked, though perhaps based on the loss of his mother at an early age. The Magnificent Ambersons is his most poignant realization of this theme in his work. Rosebud leads up to that film. Rosebud is The Magnificent Ambersons. The small-town values and mother's love that the snow-ball evoke which reminds Kane of his childhood home, and the sled called Rosebud are all explored in much more detail and presented with an additional dollop of aching loss, in Welles's second film.
Rosebud is not a gimmick. As a narrative device, it is the holy grail of the film, the engine that drives the reporter Thompson to solve the mystery of Kane, and along the way we learn as much about Kane as the characters (and the undermining overvoice of the film itself) can tell us. But when we learn, from our privileged position as viewers of the film, what Rosebud actually is, even as it is being destroyed, we also learn that it is not a hoax, nor is it hokey. As Bernard Herrmann's beautiful music rises in the background, we feel both the unsealing of the envelope and the closing of a life. It's a beautiful moment, one of the most expressive in all cinema. And you know what? In a way, a man's life can be reduced to one thing, if that thing is the rich cluster of images and ideas that Rosebud contains.
But as much as Mankiewicz contributed to the film, both in his screenplay organizing skills and in his knowledge of Hearst and his private life, Citizen Kane bears more in common with other Welles films than it does with other Mankiewicz scripts.
The gay subtext in Citizen Kane
Who wrote Kane? The answer is in the aspect of the film that everyone is afraid to mention, the gay subtext that appears in Kane and in many of Welles's other films. I'm not talking about his private life, in which, according to Simon Callow, Welles had a knack for attracting the support of older gay men such as Houseman, who were smitten with the youth's vivacity. Welles, a heavy drinker, was married three times and, like Marlon Brando and Warren Beatty after him, had ostentatious affairs with many women, among them Dolores Del Rio. None of this seemed to find its way into his films.
Women don't figure that heavily in most of Welles's films, and rarely does sex truly enter. Love and passion are there, but often presented discreetly. Kane offers up something of a Madonna/whore contrast, while his next film shows dedicated woman in a soap-operaish oleo of unrequited, often even unexpressed, love. Although the aborted It's All True celebrated the passionate life of Latin America, Welles was really interested in the politics of the time. Subsequent films dealt with "great men" and their political lives. Welles played Othello as if he were really married to Iago. There is the suggested rape of a newlywed in Touch of Evil, and a nymphomaniac in The Trial. It's a shock to see footage from the unfinished The Other Side of the Wind in which actual lust is realized in the back seat of a car. But the combination of sex and women is not what we carry away from many of these films.
Male friendship and its betrayals interested Welles, from one film to another, starting with Kane and lasting all the way to The Big Brass Ring, a screenplay credited to Welles but finally filmed by someone else. As in many films with a gay subtext, parts of Kane don't make sense unless you view them from a gay perspective. Why, exactly does Jed Leland feel so betrayed by Kane? It can't just be because Kane's political folly "put back the cause of reform 20 years." When Leland, the stooge friend, first learns of the political disgrace, he walks into a bar to drown feelings of... what? Leland, who elsewhere says he took ballet lessons with Kane's first wife and was "very graceful," has no female companions in the film, and his reaction to Kane's political "betrayal" far exceeds its actual weight. There's a love here that dare not speak its name.
This gay subtext provides another indication of Welles's hand in the Kane screenplay. Welles's other great movie, Touch of Evil, has a similar relationship between a powerful man and a stooge, in which the powerful man is the love of the stooge's life: Welles's Quinlan and Joseph Calleia's Pete Menzies; only here, both men betray each other. And the totality of The Trial only makes sense if the film is viewed as really about the persecution of a gay man in a straight society. The gay subtext of Kane only adds to its mysteries and makes it a richer film.
Mistakes in Kane
There are three that I have been able to detect. There is the big one that Kael made famous, i.e., that there is no one in the film actually hears Kane say "Rosebud" on his deathbed. Raymond the butler says that he heard it "the other time," but there is no other time. And finally, Thompson the reporter is ostensibly throughout the film working for a newsreel company, but when he interviews Susan Alexander for the second time he says he works for a weekly magazine.
Disc One: The Movie
See above. Beautiful transfer, with inky blacks and brilliant whites. A remarkably clean soundtrack.
That Pesky Second Disc
In order to fully celebrate the release of Kane on DVD, Warner has added a second disc bearing Thomas Lennon and Michael Epstein's 1996 documentary made for PBS's The American Experience called The Battle over Citizen Kane. It's written by Lennon and Richard Ben Cramer and narrated by Cramer (who seems to be striving to sound like the voice of "News on the March"), and gives an adequate summary of the background of the film. The documentary seems to rely on the Simon Callow bio, and so takes a rather hostile view of Welles, and offers a surprisingly sympathetic (and not unwelcome) view of Hearst. It's skimpy stuff, so that actress Ruth Warrick, who plays Kane's first wife, will tell about arriving on the set to find that Welles and Toland had dug holes in the floor in order to lower the camera, but the film won't go on to say why Welles and Toland did this. Instead, it's just a jolly tale about the crazy nuts making this movie. Part of an anti-Welles backlash that erupted around that time, and which culminated with Tim Robbins's syphilitic Cradle Will Rock, the documentary has moving pictures and flashing lights and so holds the attention but pales in comparison with all the written material about the film. The transfer consists of every aspect of the original broadcast, so we get to see the opening and closing ads for Scotts lawn products. But then, that's the American experience.
The Extras
Not as hot as you'd think from looking at the list on the box. The first disc, single-sided and dual-layered (SS-DL), offers, besides the film, Dolby Digital mono and subtitles in English, Spanish, French, and Portuguese, along with closed-captioning.
There are two audio commentary tracks. The first is by Peter Bogdanovich, who's been dining out on his friendship with Welles for decades. He knows a lot about Welles, and has directed films himself, but strangely does not come across as an expert, just another anecdotalist. The other audio commentary is by Roger Ebert. As a high-profile movie reviewer and practiced public speaker, Ebert seems a likely choice, and his commentary is keyed to the moment by moment experience of the movie, though he does tend to tell you what you are looking at. Sometimes he tells you what you are not looking at, such as in a dissolve associated with Joseph Cotten's Jed Leland in his dotage that is the exact opposite of what Ebert describes it as (he says the background dissolves away at a moment when the foreground of Leland is what's fading out). Ebert's comments are fine for beginners, as far as it goes, especially if the beginner keeps his eyes open, and Ebert does provide the occasional insight, such as noting the repetition of scenes in which Kane's fate is decided by others as he stands helplessly by, but one can't help thinking that there is another Chicago-based critic, named Jonathan Rosenbaum, who is an authority on Welles (and has actually met him) who would have contributed a detailed, Criterion-level track to the disc. But then, Rosenbaum is a noted critic of Hollywood and has a rather unique take on Welles (that Welles should be viewed not as a reckless youth destroyed by show biz but as a truly independent filmmaker bucking the Hollywood machine).
The rest of the extras are fine, it not consistently overwhelming. There's the fascinating four-minute original theatrical trailer with footage different from the film which announces, more or less, how un-Holywood-like the end product is going to be. Also on board is newsreel footage of about one minute in duration from the New York premiere, in May, 1941, without narration. There is about three minutes' worth of a storyboards gallery, as well as a hard-to-read call sheets gallery (50 seconds), an 11-minute stills gallery with commentary by Roger Ebert, a one-minute or so gallery of material relating to a deleted scene set in a brothel called Georgie's, which was apparently filmed but deleted. In addition, there is a 90-second gallery of advertising and poster art, portions of the original press book in a 45-second gallery, and a gallery of stills and materials relating to the film's opening night. Printed material consists of a seven-screen bio of Welles, a 15-screen production history of Kane, six screens of "postscripts" on the post-Kane careers of several participants, two screens listing awards and honors for Kane, and a screen listing the cast and crew of Kane. The good thing about these extras is that they are at least actually about the movie, unlike so many supplements these days. The bad thing is that they are ultimately underwhelming and anyway, the transfer of the film is so good that half-assed extras really aren't necessary. It's just that DVD consumers demand them.
The second disc doesn't have much on it in the way of supplements, mostly just a bunch of ads. It's a single-sided, single-layered disc (SS-SL) with Dolby Digital English 2.0, and English subtitles and closed-captioning. There's a Welles filmography, a Web link to PBS material about the documentary, an advertisement for a WGBH catalog, and ads for other WGBH documentaries. It all comes in a folding dual-DVD digipack and slipcase.
Closing Thoughts
Citizen Kane is the greatest American movie ever made.
D. K. Holm
Disc One: "Citizen Kane"
Black and white
Full frame (1.33:1)
Single-sided, dual-layered disc (SS-DL)
Dolby Digital mono (English)
English, Spanish, French, Portuguese subtitles, and English closed-captioning
Audio commentary by Peter Bogdanovich
Audio commentary by Roger Ebert
Four-minute theatrical trailer with footage different from the film
Newsreel footage (one minute) from the New York premiere, in May, 1941
Storyboards gallery (three minutes)
Call sheets gallery (50 seconds)
Eleven-minute stills gallery with commentary by Roger Ebert
One-minute gallery of material relating to a deleted scene
Gallery of advertising and poster art (90 seconds)
Original press book gallery (45 seconds)
Gallery of stills and materials relating to the film's opening night (90 seconds)
Seven-screen bio of Welles
Fifteen-screen production history of Kane
Six screens of "postscripts" on post-Kane careers of participants
Two-screen list of awards and honors
Cast and crew credits
Animated, musical home menu with 31-chapter scene-selection
Folding cardboard digi-pack in slip case
Disc Two: "The Battle Over Citizen Kane" | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 85 | https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Theme-Of-Citizen-Kane-PJXWKWCJG | en | Theme Of Citizen Kane - 1023 Words | [
"https://assets.bartleby.com/1.17/images/logos/bartleby/logo-home.svg",
"https://assets.bartleby.com/1.17/images/placeholders/essay_preview.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Free Essay: The United States of America is a big, powerful and wealthy country in the world. The diversity of class, individuality, religion, and race are a... | https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Theme-Of-Citizen-Kane-PJXWKWCJG | The United States of America is a big, powerful and wealthy country in the world. The diversity of class, individuality, religion, and race are a few of the embellishments within the "melting pot" of our society. The blend of these numerous diversities is the crucial ingredient to our modern nation. America has been formed upon them, its inhabitants- the "average American"- have a single means in common; a single concept; a single goal; the American Dream. The Dream consists of a seemingly simple theory; success.
Charles Foster Kane possessed everything the materialistic man could hope for. Kane had more money than he could count, power, a successful job, women, and expensive possessions some men would go to the extremes to have. Yet, Charles …show more content…
At the end the film we are visually told a strong message that a man isn’t necessarily the sum of his achievements, possessions, or actions, but that something deeper must drive him. Kane was more than his public accomplishments is the last word Kane uttered: “Rosebud.” Kane’s life story unfolds in layers through the reporter Thompson's investigation and is told by a succession of people who were close to him. Kane never gets to tell his own life story, and we must wonder how much his telling of it would differ from the reminiscences of his associates. None of these people ever really knew what drove Kane to do the things he did. Only Thatcher would have had the chance to fully understand Kane, but he was too concerned with making money to have any compassion for a lonely child. He viewed Kane through a distant, mature lens of acquisition and conservatism. The differing perspectives on Kane’s life, especially in the absence of Kane’s own point of view, force us to question what was truly important in the life of Charles Foster Kane as well as to ponder what constitutes a life in general. Judging by Kane's last word, the most important pieces of his life were not the things that made him newsworthy, such as his newspaper successes and political ambitions, nor his friendships and associations. Instead, as Kane's life comes to an end, he grasps at a memory from his …show more content…
As a child, Kane is fully happy as he plays in the snow outside the family’s home, even though his parents own a boarding house and are quite poor. He has no playmates but is content to be alone because peace and security are just inside the house’s walls. When Thatcher removes Kane from this place, he’s given what seems like the American dream—financial affluence and material luxury. However, Kane finds that those things don’t make him happy, and the exchange of emotional security for financial security is ultimately unfulfilling. The American dream is hollow for Kane. As an adult, Kane uses his money and power not to build his own happiness but to either buy love or make others as miserable as he is. Kane's wealth isolates him from others throughout the years, and his life ends in loneliness at Xanadu. He dies surrounded only by his possessions, poor substitutions for true | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 30 | https://www.awardsdaily.com/2020/09/oscar-flashback-when-citizen-kane-didnt-win-best-picture/ | en | Oscar Flashback – When Citizen Kane Didn’t Win Best Picture – Awardsdaily | [
"https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/adlogo7.jpg",
"http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logonew-2.png",
"https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/themes/jnews/assets/img/jeg-empty.png",
"http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/unnamed-3.jpg",
"https://secure.... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y4XiKFvQ1rM?feature=oembed"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | If you've been following along on my podcast memoir that I've been doing in fits and starts over at goldtripping.com, you heard in the first episode how I started this website way back in 1999. in part to try to figure out why Citizen Kane lost Best Picture to How Green Was My Valley. I didn't know the answer then… | en | Awardsdaily | https://www.awardsdaily.com/2020/09/oscar-flashback-when-citizen-kane-didnt-win-best-picture/ | If you’ve been following along on my podcast memoir that I’ve been doing in fits and starts over at goldtripping.com, you heard in the first episode how I started this website way back in 1999. in part to try to figure out why Citizen Kane lost Best Picture to How Green Was My Valley. I didn’t know the answer then but I know the answer now. I know because for the past two decades I’ve been watching the race from start to finish. From the hope springs eternal phase, through the wishful thinking phase, through the doors slamming shut face, to the bang and the whimper of the bitter end.
And I’m still here.
We all know this has been a really strange year. Right about now we would be on our way back from the Telluride Film Festival, flush with a few frontrunners and more often than not, the Best Picture winner would be a film we’d already seen. The Venice Film Festival is unfurling, such as it is, and most everyone else is frozen in place, thinking: what now?
There isn’t any way to make this situation less awful except maybe to dig into one of the most interesting Oscar years in their history: 1941. So why this year? Well, for two reasons. First, as I said, it was why I started this site at all, to look into the mystery of why one of the greatest, if the not the greatest, film of all time was not named Best Picture by the Academy. The second reason is because we’re all eagerly awaiting David Fincher’s Mank, a black and white film, with a screenplay written by his father Jack, about that turning point in American cinema when Herman J. Mankiewicz wrote the script, along with Orson Welles, that would become Citizen Kane.
When I first started writing about or even thinking about the Oscars, I was a firm believer in film greatness as defined by film critics. That is, those with deeper perception and better taste than your average person, with a keen knowledge and awareness of film history who we could trust to properly place a film in context, and thus, have the authority and the smarts to know greatness when they saw it. That was how I naively thought about film criticism back then.
I’d already been online since 1994, in the early days of the internet and had found a Usenet newsgroup called Cinema-l. I was not a film critic but I’d grown up as someone whose life was defined by movies, going to the movies, watching the same movies I loved over and over again. I didn’t yet know that the internet would become such an integral part of the way we all live our lives now. Back then I was a freak, huddled over my keyboard tapping away all through the night about movies and, to my surprise, attracting readers from all over the world. I’m still a freak, of course, but billions of others in the modern world have joined us to live our lives, at least partly, online.
The one thing we in the newsgroup had in common was movies. To some degree, most of my readers were film snobs, it must be said, with sensibilities of film critics. And I was not. I learned everything I would need to know, however, about how to create a blog from the seeds of that group, and I also learned everything I knew about film criticism, which wasn’t much except that the Oscars didn’t matter but Citizen Kane did.
When I say the Oscars didn’t matter, I mean they were considered a joke among most highbrow cinephiles. Most people who were serious about film did not take the Academy seriously as barometers and arbiters of good cinema. Likewise, industry voters and especially Oscar voters used to pride themselves in not being critics, or in not listening to critics. After all, how in the world could critics have any clue about what makes a good or successful movie. Oscar voters are the ones who make the movies so they would know better. Not to mention how many of them toiled on a film for the better part of a year or so, only to watch critics torch it upon release.
They trusted themselves and audiences. Critics were useful or destructive but they went their own way when it came to choosing films. Of course, much of the time the two aligned. They could agree on what was GREAT – but the Academy drew the line at others telling them what they SHOULD pick, or what SHOULD win. Believe it or not that used to be a thing.
When I started Oscarwatch, now AwardsDaily, I had been ruminating on that question – why did How Green Was My Valley win and Citizen Kane did not. I absolutely know the answer to that question now. I understand better what kinds of films people in large groups vote for, what builds a consensus, and what shifts public perception.
Winning Best Picture has to do with momentary passion, a surge in mood that rarely lasts beyond the year the film came out. It has to do with what film makes people feel good in the moment, gives them that sense of urgency that they must pick THIS MOVIE right now.
A lot has happened in the last twenty years regarding film criticism and its place in the Oscar race. For one thing, that part where critics cared about the Oscars has completely shifted. They care now. They care a lot. In fact, they care about the Oscars as much, if not more than they care about their own awards. Part of that is, no doubt, the democratization of film criticism online (anyone with a hotplate can cook), but it is also due to the increasingly insular nature of the Oscars themselves. Maybe it’s ONLY film critics who care about them anymore since the general public seems to have lost interest in most of the films chosen. Not entirely, but at least allowing film critics to reign supreme in their influence.
That would then beg the question, given everything that has changed would Citizen Kane win today?
Well, that one is hard to measure because you have to factor in how film criticism has evolved away from the more traditional definition of what makes a good film. The last time there was a major shift in how “good” was defined can probably be traced back to the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Not only did perceptions change about art and politics and life in America, but the Oscars themselves changed. The kinds of films they rewarded changed. We’re going through a similar counter culture revolution now with inclusivity and “woke” politics with a new generation defining what they think of as good — how it addresses their pressing needs about identity, gender, sexuality, skin color, ethnicity. Who gets to define what is “good” and who doesn’t. That has dramatically altered how films are reviewed because no critic or film critic group wants to be called out for favoring the dreaded “all white, all male” sensibility. That white patriarchal gaze is considered “the enemy” to the revolution unless it sees films through that lens.
What this counter is to the culture that was before is to rewrite the rules of almost everything, from how college admissions work, to how science is researched, to how people speak, to how journalists write headlines, to how people operate their businesses, to how editors manage equity, to how many films by women or people of color are included in the Oscars every year. It has been decided, even, that the films up for Oscars will be held to some kind of inclusivity standard, although that has not yet been defined officially.
The baby boomers who wrecked and revamped everything that was in place in the 1960s and 1970s have dominated the Oscars for as long as I’ve been covering them, and maybe even film criticism. That legacy is what is being dismantled right now, or is targeted to be.
So the question, could Citizen Kane win today – well, no. The reason being, it would be considerably dinged for being a film about a white man, made by all white men, with a somewhat negative portrayal of two female characters, Kane’s two wives. It would not be considered simply as a great film — maybe the definitive film about American capitalism or even the same patriarchy that has become a problem for so many now. It would be judged by a shared ideology of what defines good.
This is important to know because it will inform this year, how reviews are written, how awards are given out, how various groups tweet about their winners, how the hive responds to those winners. To an extent the Academy is sort of out of that loop but as we found with Parasite last year, and Green Book the year before, that is becoming less and less true. This is Oscars by hive mind, and like everything else, it is vulnerable to being called out, boycotted, or celebrated.
Regardless, time has elevated Citizen Kane into one of the greatest films ever made — and it hasn’t yet been dismantled by Generation Woke, as far as I can tell. A quick google search of “Citizen Kane” and “problematic” only turns up two stories.
One from 1999 by David Thomson that talks about how Sight and Sound did not list Kane as one of the greatest films of all time on their 1952 list, but how he saw it one day and it left him changed. His piece called “Film Studies: ‘Citizen Kane’ must be banned – for its sake, and for ours” makes the case that Kane has now been dragged out as the greatest film of all time to the point where students do not recognize its greatness anymore and can’t. He writes:
No one needed to withdraw Citizen Kane in 1952. The way of the world then was that the only place to see films was in cinemas booked out with new pictures. There was no video; there was little yet in the way of films on television; there was only the Classic art-house circuit that offered “old” films in repertory. And Citizen Kane had been a commercial flop in 1941. It was true that the few books on film spoke warmly of Kane, but it was largely unknown, and effectively beyond recovery.
In short, ladies and gentlemen, it was just about the most desirable film I could imagine when, one day in the mid-1950s, the Classic in Tooting, elected to revive it. I saw it there – alone. I was probably 14 or so, but I was terrified, because I had never been so moved by the medium, and had never seen my hideous future so clearly.
And one from 1941, Bosley Crowther writing for the New York Times covering what was at that time a version of “cancel culture,” but of the rich and powerful and conservative, rather than the newly woke university graduates. “Orson Welles’s Controversial ‘Citizen Kane’ Proves a Sensational Film at Palace”, the headline reads.
Kane was considered “controversial” enough that powerful forces in Hollywood were considering banning it, burying it, even so far as destroying the negative. As Crowther writes:
Within the withering spotlight as no other film has ever been before, Orson Welles’s “Citizen Kane” had is world première at the Palace last evening. And now that the wraps are off, the mystery has been exposed and Mr. Welles and the RKO directors have taken the much-debated leap, it can be safely stated that suppression of this film would have been a crime. For, in spite of some disconcerting lapses and strange ambiguities in the creation of the principal character, “Citizen Kane” is far and away the most surprising and cinematically exciting motion picture to be seen here in many a moon. As a matter of fact, it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood. Count on Mr. Welles; he doesn’t do things by halves.
A film’s life in the Oscar race has everything to do with the time and events that surrounded its release. Kane was way too controversial to win the Oscar. Welles was an outsider, without a doubt, a punk kid the industry mostly resented, as they tend to resent anyone who receives what they consider overblown praise from critics. But the film itself has to function as massive influencer on a large consensus — that means, they have to know why they are voting for it. And in John Ford and How Green Was My Valley’s case, that was easy: a film about his Irish roots. That win was a no brainer.
In 1941, John Ford was arguably among the most influential and important directors in Hollywood at the time. Welles himself watched Stagecoach over and over, to study the nuts of bolts that held a great movie together. Ford had already won Best Director twice without winning Best Picture. The Informant and the Grapes of Wrath. That meant he was where both Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity, Roma) and Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain, Life of Pi) are. In other words, he was way overdue for the coveted paired win. How Green Was My Valley was his most personal film. It was an insider’s movie rather than what Kane was, an outsider’s movie. Not to mention the threatening cloud that hung over Kane as the provocative film was being mildly shunned by a fearful faction of Hollywood collectively worried about what William Randolph Hearst might do to wreak revenge.
Had they voted for Citizen Kane then they would have been voting FOR someone who has dared to wave his spear at a mighty American icon. A film that dared to dissect a man who was known to wield his media empire like a weapon. There is no way that a large number of Oscar voters would risk that happening. But the screenplay won. And many believe it won not for appreciation of Orson Welles — but for his co-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz, or Mank.
But now, it’s reputation redeemed, Citizen Kane reaches across decades of time, and the way it’s perceived has changed as generations change. Its influence has expanded in unexpected directions depending on which budding filmmakers and curious filmgoers have discovered it. Great works of art do that: they are never exhausted by time. Although who knows, maybe the new generation will find a way to redefine what is good and maybe that will throw the baby out with the bathwater. Put it this way: I won’t be surprised if there is a postmodern attempt to deconstruct both the film and the people who love it.
Mank, a gemius in how own right, is about to be explored, exposed and perhaps exalted anew, in the full light of day with David Fincher’s upcoming film, which has been tightly kept under wraps — not even a screenshot has emerged but you can feel people salivating at the notion of a Fincher feature in black and white. Holy Mother of God.
Fincher’s films also have the ability to reach across decades of time. In particular, Fight Club and Seven are two films that only seem to get better as the generation they were released into gives way to fresh eyes. That has to happen for a film to survive. It can’t get stuck in the time it was born or it will never last.
But Best Picture winners do not have that luxury. They have to hit their mark in their moment. Whether they can last is not a consideration. The Oscars are a snapshot about who the industry was and how they wanted to present themselves more than they are about rewarding quality cinema. How Green Was My Valley is a lovely film. But more importantly, like every Oscar movie that has to win a consensus, it could be easily understood on first viewing and it make people feel good to vote for it.
Humans and the films we love fall along dividing lines between lightness and dark. Films that confirm optimism, where goodness wins out do battle with films that confirm our folly, our despair, that either we or the world are fundamentally corrupt. The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s and 70s was anti-establishment, which is probably why many of the darker films that won in the 1970s confirmed what voters thought about the world they were living in. Nixon rose to power, then briefly Jimmy Carter before Ronald Reagan took power in 1980 and transformed culture once again.
How will the political turmoil of the current year inform the Oscars? We won’t know until we see what the movies are going to be. We might not even know until we move past it. The ground is still shifting beneath our feet and most of us have no idea where we will end up.
But there is one great thing about this year: David Fincher has a movie coming out. And not only that, it’s about Citizen Kane. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 29 | http://leyendocine.blogspot.com/2007/05/orson-welles-and-modern-sound-film.html | en | leyendocine: Orson Welles and the Modern Sound Film | http://leyendocine.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://leyendocine.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | [
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Ver mi perfil completo"
] | null | Book Title: A History of Narrative Film. Contributors: David A. Cook - author. Publisher: W. W. Norton. Place of Publication: New York. Publ... | http://leyendocine.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://leyendocine.blogspot.com/2007/05/orson-welles-and-modern-sound-film.html | Orson Welles and the Modern Sound Film
Book Title: A History of Narrative Film. Contributors: David A. Cook - author. Publisher: W. W. Norton. Place of Publication: New York. Publication Year: 1996.
Cap.10 Orson Welles and the Modern Sound Film
At the very moment that France was being occupied by the Nazis and the rest of Europe was engulfed in war, a young American director made a film which was to substantially transform the cinema. In 1939 Orson Welles (1915-85) was brought to Hollywood by the financially troubled RKO Pictures under an unprecedented six-film contract which gave him complete control over every aspect of production. * At twenty-four, Welles' experience in radio and theater was vast. From 1933 to 1937 he directed and acted in numerous Broadway and off-Broadway plays, including a production of Macbeth with a voodoo setting and an antiFascist Julius Caesar set in contemporary Italy; in 1937, with John Houseman (1902-88), he founded the famous Mercury Theatre company; and between 1938 and 1940 he wrote, directed, and starred in the weekly radio series Mercury Theatre on the Air, whose pseudodocumentary broadcast based on H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds caused a nation- wide panic on Halloween night in 1938.
Welles had made several short films in connection with his theatrical productions (such as Too Much Johnson, 1938), but he had never been on a soundstage in his life. His first feature film was to have been an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, filmed with a subjective camera from the point of view of the narrator (who is also a participant in the action), but this project was abandoned indefinitely due to technical problems, cost overruns, and other difficulties, including the outbreak of war in Europe and the internment of its female lead, the German actress Dita Parlo. † Next, Welles undertook to film a script written by himself and Herman J. Mankiewicz (1898-1953) about the life
____________________
* According to Frank Brady in Citizen Welles: A Biography of Orson Welles (New York: Scribner's, 1989), the original RKO contract, signed on July 22, 1939, was actually a two‐film deal which gave Welles a remarkable degree of control over production on the set but also gave the studio the right of preproduction story refusal and postproduction "consultation" on the release print (pp. 199-200). The exaggeration of the contract's terms was probably the work of RKO's publicity department.
† Dita Parlo (1906-71) was working in the French film industry when the war began (she had played featured roles in Vigo's L'Atalante [1934] and Renoir's La Grande illusion [1937], among other films); military officials had her arrested as an alien and, ultimately, deported to Germany. For a full account of the Heart of Darkness project and its termina- tion, see Robert L. Carringer's The Making of Citizen Kane (Berkeley: University of Califor- nia Press, 1985), Ch. 1.
-392-
and personality of a great American entrepreneur. Originally entitled simply American, the Welles-Mankiewicz scenario ultimately became the shooting script for Citizen Kane (1941), the now-legendary cryptobioraphy of America's most powerful press lord, William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951).
CITIZEN KANE
Production
Welles claimed that his only preparation for directing Citizen Kane was to watch John Ford's Stagecoach (1939) forty times. Ford's influence on the film is pronounced, but it is equally clear that Welles was steeped in the major European traditions, especially those of German Expressionism and the Kammerspielfilm * and French poetic realism. If Kane's narrative economy owes much to the example of Ford, its visual texture is heavily indebted to the chiaroscuro lighting of Lang, the fluid camera of Murnau, the baroque mise-en-scène of von Sternberg, and the deep-focus realism of Renoir. Credit is also due Welles' remarkably talented collaborators—Mankiewicz; the Mercury Theatre players; the composer Bernard Herrmann; the editor Robert Wise; and the unit art director, Perry Ferguson. †
But Welles' greatest single technical asset in the filming of Kane was his brilliant director of photography, Gregg Toland (1904-48). Toland had earned a distinguished reputation as a cinematographer in Holly-
wood in the thirties and had experimented with deep-focus photography and ceilinged sets in his three most recent films, Wuthering Heights (William Wyler, 1939), for which he had won an Academy Award, The Grapes of Wrath (John Ford, 1940), and The Long Voyage Home (John Ford, 1940). Welles (or Mankiewicz) had conceived Kane as a film which occurs largely in flashback as characters recall their acquaintance with the great man (played by Welles himself) after his death, and he wanted the narrative to flow poetically from image to image in a manner analogous to the process of human memory. Thus, Welles used straight cuts largely for shock effect and made the most of his narrative transitions through lingering, in-camera lap dissolves. More important, Welles planned to construct the film as a series of long takes, or sequence shots, scrupulously composed in-depth to eliminate the necessity for narrative cutting within major dramatic scenes.
____________________
* As John Russell Taylor has observed, "Citizen Kane may be the best American film ever made; but it just might be also the best German film ever made." (Quoted in German Film Directors in Hollywood: Catalogue of an Exhibit of the Goethe Institutes of North America [San Francisco: Goethe Institute, 19781, p. 5. ) To make the question of influence even richer, Howard Hawks claimed in a 1976 interview that Welles modeled Kane on his own His Girl Friday (1940) and had told him so in 1941 (Bruce F. Kawin, "Introduction: No Man Alone," in To Have and Have Not, ed. Bruce F. Kawin (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 41.
† As administrative head of the RKO art department, Van Nest Polglase received official screen credit for this function, with Ferguson listed as "Associate," but the latter was art director in fact. This practice reflected the bureaucratic hierarchy of the studio system, whereby department heads were contractually entitled to screen credits (and, therefore, to awards) for work performed by their subordinates.
-393-
To accomplish this, Toland perfected for Welles a method of deep‐ focus photography capable of achieving an unprecedented depth of field.
As explained in Chapter 9, the "soft" style of photography favored by the studios during the thirties was characterized by diffused lighting and relatively shallow focus—a product of the wider lens apertures required for filming in incandescent light. By the end of the decade, technical improvements in film stocks and lighting permitted greater depth of field, but most studio cinematographers were conservative and continued to practice the "soft" style. Toland, however, was a bold experimenter whose work in-depth—especially in The Long Voyage Home—had earned him a reputation for the kind of flamboyant originality prized by Welles in his Mercury Theatre productions. Toland's self-styled "pan focus" photography for Kane was a synthesis of many techniques he had used before. It employed the newly available Eastman Super XX film stock (an ultrafast film with a very high sensitivity to light—four times faster, in fact, than its standard Super X, without a notable increase in grain) in combination with a 24mm wide-angle lens whose aperture was stopped down to f-8 or less—a radical reduction in its size (see note, p. 385). The scenes were lit by the high-intensity arc lamps recently introduced for Technicolor production, and the lenses were coated with a clear plastic substance (magnesium fluoride) to reduce glare. Finally, Toland used the Mitchell Camera Corporation's self-blimped BNC, a relatively small and portable camera first used professionally in Wuthering Heights, which greatly increased the operator's freedom and range of movement. * With these tools, Toland was able to achieve something very close to "universal" focus within the frames of Citizen Kane, and Welles was able to distribute dramatic action across a depth perspective unlike anything ever used in a sound film. Since the early sixties, improvements in lenses, lighting, and film emulsions have greatly simplified deep-focus
____________________
* Additionally, a new fine-grain stock for producing release prints had been introduced in 1939. It virtually eliminated graininess in print generation and preserved image depth in films like The Long Voyage Home and Kane. photography, but the technical principles remain much the same. Welles' use of the deep-focus sequence shot in Kane demonstrated an absolute mastery of composition in depth. Like Renoir, he used the deep-focus format functionally, to develop scenes without resorting to montage, but he also used it expressively—as Eisenstein had used montage—to create metaphors for things that the cinema cannot represent directly on the screen.
At the height of his arrogance and power, for example, Kane often looms like a giant in the foreground of the frame, dwarfing other characters in the middleground and background, and towering over the audience, often from a low camera angle. Later, Kane's self-absorbed alienation from the world and everyone in it is conveyed by the growing distance which separates him from all other characters within the frame.
In these instances, Welles' use of depth perspective involves an expressive distortion of space which creates a metaphor for something in Kane's psychology. At other times, Welles uses deep focus both to achieve narrative economy and to echelon characters dramatically within the frame. Early in the film, a brilliant deep-focus sequence shot encapsulates the story of Kane's lost childhood. We see the front room of a boardinghouse in which Charlie Kane's mother signs the agreement that will permit her son to be taken to the East and later inherit a fortune. In exchanging her son's childhood for an adult life of fantastic wealth, she is selling him, and she knows it. Welles set the shot up like this: In the foreground of the frame, Mrs. Kane and Mr. Thatcher, whose bank is the executor of the estate, sign the agreement. The middleground is occupied by Charlie's weak-willed father, whose vacillation about the agreement is rendered visible as he paces back and forth between foreground and background.
In the back of the room is a window through which, in the extreme background of the frame, we see Charlie playing unsuspectingly in the snow with his sled and shouting, "The Union forever!" while in the fore- ground of the same shot, he is being indentured to his own future. Thus,
-395-
in a single shot, Welles is able to communicate a large amount of narrative and thematic information which would require many shots in a conventionally edited scene.
Kane is a film of much fluid intraframe movement. The sequence just described, for instance, actually begins with a medium long shot of Charlie at play in the snow through the open window of the boardinghouse; then the camera pulls back rapidly to reveal the other characters and elements in the composition. But there are three virtuoso moving camera shots in the film, each of which is a tour de force of fluidity and continuity. In the first, from a shot of a poster announcing the appearance of Kane's second wife, Susan, at the El Rancho nightclub, the camera cranes up vertically to the club's flashing neon sign, then tracks horizontally through it and down onto the rain-spattered glass of a skylight. The movement continues after a quick dissolve (made invisible by flashing lightning and distracting thunder), as the camera descends to a medium shot of Susan Alexander Kane and a newsman talking together at a table in the club's interior. In another shot, midway through the film, the camera cranes up vertically from a long shot of Susan singing on the stage of the Chicago Municipal Opera House to a catwalk some four stories
above it, where a stagehand makes a vulgar but richly deserved gesture of contempt for her performance. Finally, there is the long swooping crane shot which concludes the film, as the camera tracks slowly across the vast collection of artifacts that Kane has amassed in a lifetime of collecting, coming to rest on the object of the search for "Rosebud" that gives the film its narrative impulse or motive.
Other remarkable aspects of this wholly remarkable film are its expressive chiaroscuro lighting * and frequent use of extreme low-angle photography in connection with the figure of Kane. The latter necessitated many muslin ceilinged sets, which had been used in Hollywood before, especially in the work of Toland, but never so consistently and effectively to suggest a sense of claustration and enclosure. (Filmmakers have conventionally left their interior sets roofless, first to admit the sunlight and later to facilitate artificial lighting and the free movement of the boom crane and microphone. ) Finally, and most significantly, attention must be called to Kane's innovative use of sound.
Welles' experience in radio served him well in recording the sound- track for Kane. He invented for his few montage sequences a technique he called the "lightning mix," in which shots were rapidly linked together not by the narrative logic of their images but by the continuity of the soundtrack. Kane's growth from child to adult is conveyed in a matter of seconds: a shot of his guardian giving him a sled and wishing him "a Merry Christmas" is cut together with a shot of the same man some fifteen years later, as he completes the sentence—"and a Happy New Year"—again addressing Kane, but in a different dramatic context. Another lightning mix conveys the entire progress of Kane's campaign for governor of New York State in four brief shots. First we see Kane listening to Susan Alexander sing (wretchedly) at the piano in the parlor of her boardinghouse. This dissolves into another shot of the two in the
____________________
* There are two major lighting styles in Kane—the sharp, high-contrast "daylight" style associated with Kane's youth and rise to power, and the dark, expressionistic "low-light" style which characterizes his corruption and decline.
-396-
same relative positions in a much more elegantly appointed parlor, that of an apartment in which Kane has obviously set her up. At the end of Susan's performance, Kane claps, and the shot is dovetailed with another of a friend addressing a small street rally in Kane's behalf. The applause, which has been continuous on the soundtrack since the parlor shot, grows louder and multiplies in response to the speaker's words: "I am speaking for Charles Foster Kane, the fighting liberal ... who entered upon this campaign with one purpose only—." Welles cut finally to a long shot of Kane himself addressing a huge political rally at Madison Square Garden and completing the sentence as the camera begins to track toward the speaker's platform: "—to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy of Boss Jim Gettys' political machine." The address continues, and the narrative resumes a more conventional form.
Another device introduced by Welles in Kane was the overlapping sound montage in which—as in reality—people speak not one after another (as they do on the stage) but virtually all at once, so that part of what is said is lost. Overlapping dialogue between major players in a film had been used as early as 1931 by Lewis Milestone in The Front Page, but it had not been used to produce a sense of realistic collective conversation as it was in Kane. A good example in the film (and there is an example in almost every major sequence) occurs in the screening room after the projection of the "News on the March" newsreel. So many persons are speaking on the track simultaneously that one has the distinct sense of having accidentally stumbled into the aftermath of a board meeting. Welles continued to use this technique in his later films, and it has influenced many other filmmakers—both his contemporaries, like Carol Reed, and more recent directors, like Robert Altman, who has been so firmly committed to overlapping sound montage that unknowledgeable critics once complained about the "poor quality" of his soundtracks.
A final example of Welles' subtle refinement of sound occurs in one of his best deep-focus set-ups. Kane, in a newsroom, is seated at a typewriter in the extreme foreground of the frame finishing a bad review of Susan Alexander Kane's Chicago opera debut which his ex-friend Jed Leland has written. Correspondingly, we hear the tapping of the typewriter keys on the "foreground" of the soundtrack. From a door in the background of the frame, Leland emerges—barely recognizable, so great is the distance—and begins to walk slowly toward Kane. As he moves from the background to the foreground of the frame, Leland's footsteps move from the "background" to the "foreground" of the soundtrack— from being initially inaudible to having nearly an equal volume with the keys. Similarly, in the Chicago Opera House shot, as the camera dollies up from the stage to the catwalk, Susan's voice grows ever more distant on the track, creating once more a precise correspondence of visual and aural "space."
Structure
The formal organization of Citizen Kane is extraordinary. Like a Jorge Luis Borges story, it begins with the death of its subject. Through an elaborate series of lap-dissolved stills, we are led from a "No Tres- passing" sign on a chain link fence farther and farther into the forbidding
-397
Kane estate of Xanadu, as if by the tracking movement of a camera, until at last we approach a lighted window high in a Gothic tower. The light is suddenly extinguished, and Welles dissolves to the interior of the room, where Charles Foster Kane dies in state, clutching a small glass globe which contains a swirling snow scene and whispering "Rosebud"—the word that motivates the film and echoes through it until the final frames. Kane drops the globe in dying; it rolls down the steps and breaks in close‐ up. Through the distorting lens of the convex broken glass (actually, a wide-angle lens focused through a diminishing glass), we watch a nurse enter the room from a door in the background in long shot; she walks to the foreground in close shot, folds Kane's arms, and pulls the covers up to his chest. After a fade to a medium shot of Kane's body silhouetted against the window, we suddenly cut to a logo projected obliquely on a screen, and the soundtrack booms the title "News on the March!"— introducing a sophisticated parody of a March of Time newsreel * on Kane's life and death. Welles is thus able to give a brief and coherent, if unsequential, overview of the major events in Kane's life before they become jumbled like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle in the succeeding narratives.
____________________
* The March of Time was a popular series of skillfully (some would say slickly) produced film news journals released monthly in the the United States between 1935 and 1951. Each issue was twenty minutes long, and, generally, focused on a single subject. These films were usually shown as preludes to features, so that Citizen Kane's original audiences might well have watched an authentic March of Time newsreel just before seeing the parodic "News on the March" in Kane. The March of Time series was politically conservative, reflecting the editorial policies of its financial backer, Time-Life, Inc., and of Time-Life's director, Henry R. Luce (1898-1967). Time-Life succeeded the Hearst empire, which was badly crippled by the Depression, to become a major shaper of public opinion during the thirties, forties, and fifties. The identification in Citizen Kane of Rawlston's news organization with the Luce press is entirely deliberate, since it extends the Kane / Hearst analogy.
-398-
In a sense, the newsreel is Citizen Kane itself in miniature. Like the larger film, it begins with Kane's death (or his funeral), covers the same events in a similar overlapping, chronological manner, and ends with the mystery of Kane's character unresolved. We learn from the newsreel that Kane was an enormously controversial figure, hated and loved by millions of Americans, whose vast wealth was inherited by fluke: a supposedly worthless deed left to his mother in payment for a boardinghouse room gave him sole ownership of the priceless Colorado Lode. We learn that in an earlier period of American history, near the turn of the century, Kane's wealth and the influence of his newspapers were incalculable. We learn that he was married twice—first to a president's niece, then to Susan Alexander, "singer," for whom he built the Chicago Municipal Opera House and Xanadu. We learn that Kane's promising and apparently nonstop political career was destroyed during a campaign for the governorship of the State of New York by a "love-nest" scandal involving Susan Alexander. We learn finally that Kane's newspaper empire was crippled by the Depression and that he subsequently exiled himself to the solitude of Xanadu, where, after many years of seclusion, he died in 1941. The newsreel ends, and the camera discovers a dimly and expressionistically lit projection room, where the contemporary media journalists (successors of the Kane/Hearst empire and identified with the Luce press) who produced the film discuss it. Rawlston, the executive in charge, thinks it needs an "angle" that will somehow explain the paradoxical figure of Kane. Someone seizes upon the man's dying words, the film's release is postponed, and a journalist named Thompson (played by William Alland) is sent out to interview all of Kane's intimate acquaintances to discover the meaning of "Rosebud" and, it is hoped, of Kane himself.
The rest of the film is contained in a series of five narratives—told in flashback by each of the people Thompson talks to—and a balancing epilogue of sorts. The narratives overlap with each other and with the "News on the March" newsreel at certain points, so that some of the events in Kane's life are presented from several different points of view within the total film. From the screening room, a shock cut takes us to a poster on a brick wall, suddenly illuminated by lightning, which announces the El Rancho nightclub appearance of the second Mrs. Kane. Through the elaborate craning movement previously described, we are brought into the interior of the club, where a drunk and hostile Susan Alexander Kane (Dorothy Comingore) refuses to talk to Thompson. He can get no information from the headwaiter either, and the screen then fades out and into a daytime sequence at the Walter P. Thatcher Memorial Library. (Thatcher, we come to understand later in the sequence, was Kane's guardian and executor of the Colorado Lode estate. ) Here, Thompson is grudgingly given access to Thatcher's memoirs, and, as he reads the words "I first encountered Mr. Kane in 1871... ," the screen dissolves from a close-up of Thatcher's longhand to a lyrical shot of a boy playing with a sled in front of Mrs. Kane's boardinghouse, somewhere in Colorado, during a snowstorm. In the long deep-focus shot described above, Mrs. Kane (Agnes Moore- head) signs the papers that make Thatcher's bank the boy's guardian and certify his inheritance. Outside, young Kane is told of his imminent departure for the East; he pushes Thatcher (George Coulouris) into the snow with his sled. We dissolve to a medium shot of the sled, some time later, covered with drifing snow, and then into the "Merry Christmas— Happy New Year" lightning mix, which places us in New York City many years later on the occasion of Kane's twenty-first birthday. * We learn that of all the holdings in "the world's sixth largest private for-tune," which Kane is about to inherit, only the financially failing daily newspaper, the New York Inquirer, interests him, because he thinks "it would be fun to run a newspaper." Next, in a brief but potent montage sequence, we see Thatcher increasingly outraged by the Inquirer's populist, muckraking (and anti-Republican) headlines, until he finally confronts Kane in the Inquirer office. Their apparent antipathy for one another—both ideological and personal—is apparent, and Thatcher warns Kane of financial disaster. As if to confirm this prophecy, the following sequence, composed in depth, shows Kane, much older, signing his now vast but bankrupt newspaper chain over to Thatcher in the midst of the Depression, and here Thatcher's narrative ends.
Thompson next visits Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane), once Kane's general manager and right-hand man, now the aging chairman of the board of the Kane Corporation. Bernstein's narrative begins by recalling in flashback the first day at the Inquirer office, when he, Kane, and Kane's old college buddy Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten) arrived to claim the paper, in what was clearly to be a lark for all three young men. But the playfulness is mitigated a few scenes later when, in the presence of Bernstein and Leland, Kane composes a "Declaration of Principles" for his first front page. † Leland asks to keep the manuscript, comparing it facetiously to the Declaration of Independence. In this sequence, the twenty‐one-year-old Kane is revealed to be the romantic idealist of the crusading populist headlines so repugnant to Thatcher, and Leland's admiration for him is unqualified. In the next sequence, Kane, Leland, and Bernstein are seen reflected in the window of the New York Chronicle Building,
____________________
* An apparent inconsistency in the continuity script, since seconds earlier in Colorado we have heard Thatcher tell Mrs. Kane that the fortune is "to be administered by the bank in trust for your son ... until he reaches his twenty-fifth birthday."
† Both an allusion to a 1935 incident in which Hearst, threatened with a boycott of his newspapers, bought advertising space in rival papers to publish a statement of principles ("The Hearst Papers Stand for Americanism and Genuine Democracy," etc. ) and an hom- mage to the Mercury Theatre's "declaration of principles" published on the front page of the New York Times Sunday drama section on August 29, 1937, thanks to Welles' friendship with Times theater critic Brooks Atkinson.
-400
gazing at a photograph of the Chronicle's top-flight staff, which, they admit, has made it the most successful newspaper in the city. The camera moves in close upon the picture and then back out to reveal the group, suddenly animated and sitting for another photograph six years later— this time to commemorate their joining the staff of the Inquirer en masse. A raucous banquet sequence follows, in which the dining table is photo- graphed in extreme depth, with ice sculptures of Leland and Bernstein in the foreground at one end, Kane in the background at the other, and the new staff members occupying the space in between. During the revelry, Leland expresses to Bernstein his concern that these new men, so fresh from the Chronicle and its policies, will change Kane, and the scene dissolves into another one of Bernstein and Leland uncrating boxes of sculpture that Kane has been collecting on a European tour. It is revealed by Bernstein that Kane may also be "collecting" something (or someone) else. A dissolve brings us to the interior of the Inquirer office some time later, on the day of Kane's return from Europe. The staff attempts to present him with an engraved loving cup, and he awkwardly leaves them a notice announcing his engagement to Miss Emily Monroe Norton, the niece of the President of the United States. The staff watches from the windows of the Inquirer Building as Kane and his fiancée drive off in a carriage; and the second narrative draws to a close with Bernstein speculating to Thompson that maybe "Rosebud" was "something he lost."
Thompson next pays a visit to Leland, who has become a somewhat senile (but still intelligent) old man confined to a nursing home. Indeed, the dissolves into the Leland narrative flashback are among the most lingering in the whole film, as if to suggest the sluggishness of his memory ; and not a little of the film's impact derives from this flashback technique of narration, which permits us to see all of the major characters in youth and age almost simultaneously. Like those of the other characters, Leland's narrative is chronological but not continuous. Initially, he relates the story of Kane's first marriage in a sequence which convincingly compresses the relationship's slow decline into a series of brief breakfast-table conversations linked by swish pans and overlapping sound—that is, a lightning mix. Next, in a much longer flashback, Leland describes Kane's first meeting with Susan Alexander and Kane's subsequent political ruin at the hands of his opponent, "Boss" Jim Gettys (and as a result of his own stubborn, egomaniacal refusal to withdraw from the race). Of particular note is the scene in which Leland confronts Kane after he has lost the election. The entire sequence is shot in depth from an extremely low angle (the camera was actually placed in a hole in the floor to make the shot), so that Kane looms above both Leland and the audience, a grotesque, inflated parody of the politically powerful figure he has so desperately tried (and failed) to become. Drunk, and disillusioned with his idol, Leland insists that he be transferred to the Chicago office, and Kane reluctantly consents. The final section of Leland's narrative concerns Kane's marriage to Susan Alexander and her singing debut at the opera house he has built for her. The lengthy vertical craning shot from Susan performing abjectly on the stage to the stagehand holding his nose occurs here, as does Leland's long, deep-focus walk from the back of the Chicago Inquirer newsroom to the extreme foreground of the frame, where an embittered Kane finishes Leland's bad review of the performance, and summarily fires him.
-402-
Here Leland's narrative ends, and Thompson returns once more to the El Rancho nightclub. Again the camera travels up from the poster of Susan Alexander, cranes through the sign, and dissolves through the skylight to a medium close shot of Thompson and Susan sitting at a table. Susan, who has finally agreed to talk, begins her story with a flashback to a session with her voice coach, Signor Matisti, which occurred shortly after her marriage to Kane. Susan, Matisti, and a pianist occupy the foreground of a deep-focus shot of a large, expensively decorated room. Susan's voice is so bad that Matisti refuses to continue the lesson, but at this point Kane emerges from a door in the back of the room and walks toward the group, becoming larger and larger as he moves toward the lens. When he reaches the foreground, he browbeats both Matisti and Susan into continuing the humiliating session, until a dissolve brings us to the second version of Susan's singing debut at the Chicago Municipal Opera House. We have already seen her performance from Leland's point of view in his narrative, and now we see virtually the same events from Susan's perspective as she looks out into the vast and terrifying void of the audience, invisible beyond the footlights. Her aria begins, and as she attempts to fill the huge theater with her frail voice, * Welles intercuts subjective shots of Matisti frantically coaching her with audience reaction shots (contempt, boredom, disbelief) and close-ups of an aging Kane peering grimly toward the stage. When the performance ends with very light applause, Kane claps loudly, as if to fill the hall with his solitary accolade. A dissolve brings us to Kane and Susan the morning after in a Chicago apartment, where Susan shrilly denounces Leland for his bad
____________________
* In 1973, at a symposium at the George Eastman House in Rochester, New York, Bernard Herrmann pointed out that Susan (or, rather, the singer dubbing her voice) actually could sing, but only modestly. The high tessitura overture to Salammbô, the fake opera Herrmann composed for her debut, was purposely designed to exceed the capacity of her voice and create "that terror-in-the-quicksand feeling" of a singer hopelessly out of her depth at the very outset of a long performance. (Quoted in Sound and the Cinema, ed. Evan William Cameron [Pleasantville, N. Y.: Redgrave Publishing, 1980], p. 128).
-404
review—actually completed by Kane. We learn that Kane has fired Leland and sent him a check for twenty-five thousand dollars, which Leland has retruned along qith the pompoulsy idealist “Declaration of
Principles” that Kane had printed in his first issue of the New York Inquirer years before. We also learn that Susan's singing career has been imposed upon her by Kane, who insists that it continue.
There follows a rapid montage of dissolves, overlaid on the soundtrack by Susan's voice, in which Inquirer healines from cities around the country acclaiming Susan Alexander's meteoric rise to stardom are lapdissolved alternately with shots of flashing call lights, Susan onstage, increasing rate until a klieg light suddenly fizzles and goes out, cutting off Susan's voice and leaving us in total darkness. Moments later, we slowly fade in on a deep-focus shot of a darkened room: in the extreme foreground is a near-empty galss of liquid and a spoon (this particular foreground object is reproduced not through deep focus but in-camera matte shot); in the middleground Susan tosses in bed, breathing heavily; in the background a door flies open and Kane bursts into the room, barely foiling her suicide attempt. Susan is treated by a discreet doctor, and Kane promises that she needn't sing again. Now we fade to Xanadu, some time later, where the final portion of Susan's narrative takes place. Here, in deep-focus shots that grotesquely distance them from one another across the breadth of a palatial chamber, Kane and Susan pursue a series of conversations that show them to be utterly at odds. Kane has become a cynical domestic tyrant and Susan a virtual prisoner of the estate; she passes the time endlessly working and reworking jigsax puzzles—a metaphor for the mystery of identity in the film. Against Susan's will, Kane arranges a spectacular:y extravagant weekend “picnic” in the Everglades, where the two break openly and he slaps her. The next day at Xanadu, Susan announces to Kane that she is leaving him for good; he begs her to stay, but, realizing Kane's nearly constitutional inability to return love, she refuses and walks out the door. Susan concludes her narrative by advising Thompson to talk to Raymond the butler, who "knows where all the bodies are buried," when he visits Xanadu. The camera moves back and up, dissolves through the skylight, and pulls back through the El Rancho sign, reversing the movement of its entry.
Dissolves bring us to the gate of Xanadu and then to the interior for Raymond's brief narrative, which begins where Susan's ended. It opens not with a dissolve but with a shocking straight cut from Raymond (Paul Stewart) and Thompson on the stairs to a close shot of a shrieking cockatoo, behind which we see Susan in the middleground emerging from the same door she has begun to walk through (from the other side) at the end of her own narrative as she leaves Kane and Xanadu. Raymond's flashback then depicts the violent tantrum Kane throws as she departs: he staggers about Susan's bedroom like some mechanized madman, smashing furniture, mirrors, cosmetic jars, and all manner of trinkets and bric-a-brac until his hand finally comes to rest on the glass globe with the snow scene that we first saw at his death in the beginning of the film and later saw in Susan's apartment when they met. We hear Kane whisper "Rosebud!" and watch him shuffle slowly out of Susan's demolished room, past a gauntlet of staring servants and guests, and down a huge hall of mirrors as Raymond's narrative concludes.
Now Thompson and Raymond move down the central staircase into the great hall of Xanadu, where we see in long shot that a multitude of reporters, photographers, and workmen have assembled in a mass effort to catalog and liquidate Kane's huge collection of objects. The camera pulls back to follow the two men as they pass through the hall, discovering as it does so newspeople photographing both the treasures and trash of the Kane collection—Renaissance sculpture, Kane's mother's pot-bellied stove, Oriental statuary, the loving cup presented to Kane by the Inquirer staff on his return from Europe, priceless paintings, a myriad of jigsaw puzzles. Thompson's colleagues ask him whether he has discov- -406-
ered the meaning of "Rosebud." He replies that he hasn't and that, in any case, he no longer believes in the quest: "I don't think any word can explain a man's life. No, I guess 'Rosebud' is just a piece in a jigsaw puzzle, a missing piece."
Thompson and the others leave to catch the train back to New York, and a lap dissolve brings us to an aerial view of the hall, with the camera shooting down over the vast collection that stretches away into the distance. Another lap dissolve brings the camera a little closer to the collection as it begins to track slowly over the entire mass of crates, statues, boxes, and belongings—the ruins and relics of Kane's loveless life— which, from our aerial perspective, resemble nothing so much as the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The shot continues for some time until the camera reaches the humble possessions of Mrs. Kane and dollies down gracefully into an eye-level shot of her things. We see a man grab a sled and, in the next shot, throw it into a furnace at Raymond's command.
We dissolve to a close-up of the burning sled and can read on it the word
-407
Rosebud" just before the letters melt away in flames. A dissolve brings us to an exterior long shot of Xanadu at night, as we first encountered it, with smoke billowing from its chimneys. The camera tilts up to follow the smoke, dissolves to the chain link fence surrounding the estate, and pans down slowly to the "No Trespassing" sign with which the film began.
Thus, Citizen Kane concludes with the mystery of its central figure unresolved. The identity of "Rosebud" is clearly inadequate to account for the terrible emptiness at the heart of Kane, and of America, and is
meant to be. Its power as a symbol of lost love and innocence lies in its very insufficiency, for the "missing piece" of the jigsaw puzzle of Kane's life, the "something he lost," turns out to be an inanimate object, and a regressive one at that. In its barrenness, "Rosebud" becomes a perfect symbol of Kane's inability to relate to people in human terms, or to love, and the ultimate emblem of his futile attempt to fill the void in himself with objects. In the film's two-hour running time we have seen Kane from seven separate perspectives—those of the newsreel, the five narrators, and the concluding reprise—and we probably have come to know more about the circumstances of his life than the man would have known himself. We know what he did and how he lived and died, but we can never know what he meant—perhaps, Welles seems to suggest, because, like "Rosebud," he was ultimately meaningless, or perhaps because reality itself is ambiguous and unreliable. In any case, it is the quest for meaning rather than its ultimate conclusion that makes Citizen Kane such a rich and important film.
Influence
In the year of its release, Citizen Kane was a radically experimental film—fully twenty years ahead of its time—and was widely recognized as such by American critics. But it failed at the box office less because of its experimental nature than because of an aura of fear in Hollywood created by attacks on Welles and RKO in the Hearst press. Hearst was still living, and his vassals attempted to suppress what they correctly took to be an unflattering portrait of their master. Though they were unsuccess- ful in preventing the film's release, the adverse publicity made it difficult for Kane to get bookings and advertising. * As a result, the film did poorly outside of New York City and was withdrawn from circulation until the mid-fifties, when it played the art house circuit and began to acquire a more sophisticated audience. Since then, Kane has been voted the "Best Film of All Time" in five successive international polls (Brussels, 1958;
Sight and Sound, 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992), and there is every indication that its critical reputation continues to grow.
The influence of Citizen Kane upon the cinema has been enormous and nearly universal. The film's impact did not begin to be felt until after the war, when its use of low-key lighting and wide-angle lenses to achieve greater depth of field influenced the visual style of American film noir and its flashback narrative technique began to be imitated in more conventional films like Robert Siodmak's The Killers (1946). There were also imitations of Kane's structure and / or theme: George Cukor's Keeper of the Flame (1942), Max Ophüls' Caught (1949), and, after the art house revival, José Ferrer's The Great Man (1957). Directors like Britain's Carol Reed (Odd Man Out, 1947; The Third Man, 1949; An Outcast of the Islands, 1952—all highly Wellesian films) absorbed much of the film's visual and aural textures; and, according to François Truffaut, the young French cinéastes who would later form the New Wave found in Kane's 1946 Paris premiere the ultimate justification of their reverence for American cinema.
Kane's most important and pervasive influence, however, did not begin to be felt until the mid-fifties, after the advent of the widescreen processes, when European critics—notably Bazin—discovered in it (and, less emphatically, in Renoir's films) the model for a new film aesthetic based not upon montage but upon the "long take," or sequence shot. The primary concern of the long take aesthetic is not the sequencing of images, as in montage, but the disposition of space within the frame, or mise-en‐scène. Welles is today regarded for all practical purposes as the founder and master of this aesthetic (in the same way that Eisenstein is regarded as the founder and master of montage), though its lineage can be traced as far back as Louis Feuillade. Finally, Kane was the first recognizably modern sound film; and it stood in the same relationship to its medium in 1941 as did The Birth of a Nation in 1914 and Potemkin in 1925— that is, it was an achievement in the development of narrative form, years in advance of its time, which significantly influenced most of the important films that followed it. Through deep-focus photography, Kane attempts to technically reproduce the actual field of vision of the human eye in order to structure our visual perception of screen space by means of composition in depth. Through its innovative use of sound, it attempts to reproduce the actual aural experience of the human ear and then to manipulate our aural perception of screen space by distorting and qualifying this experience. And in both respects, though the technology is not the same, Kane brilliantly anticipates the contemporary cinema of wide- screen photography and stereophonic sound.
-410-
Contrary to popular belief, Kane was anything but a financially extravagant production. The entire film—cavernous ceilinged sets and all—was made for 839,727 dollars, * with a remarkable economy of means: for many scenes Welles and Ferguson converted standing sets from other RKO pictures, and, in the Everglades sequence, they actually used jungle footage from Son of Kong (1933), complete with animated bats. Nevertheless, the financial failure of the film stigmatized Welles as a loser in Hollywood, and he was never again permitted to have total control of an industry production. †
WELLES AFTER KANE
Welles' second film, The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), is one of the great lost masterworks of the cinema. Like von Stroheim's Greed (1924) and Eisenstein's Que viva México! (1929-31), The Magnificent
Ambersons was taken out of its director's hands and radically recut to satisfy the exigencies of the new wartime economy as perceived by the Bureau of Motion Picture Affairs (see pp. 439 and 442). While Welles was in Brazil shooting footage for a semidocumentary entitled It's All True, cosponsored by RKO and the State Department, RKO cut The Magnificent Ambersons from 132 to eighty-eight minutes and provided it with a totally incongruous happy ending shot by the film's production manager, Freddie Fleck. **
Flawed though it is, The Magnificent Ambersons remains a great and powerful film. Adapted by Welles from Booth Tarkington's novel, it parallels the turn-of-the-century decline of a proud and wealthy provincial family with the rise of the modern industrial city of Indianapolis. It is an unabashedly nostalgic film whose mise-en-scène is carefully calculated to create a sense of longing for the past. Although he was no Gregg Toland, cinematographer Stanley Cortez's high-contrast lighting and deep-focus photography of the interior of the Amberson mansion produced some of the most beautiful sequence shots ever to appear on the American screen. Like Citizen Kane, the film is constructed largely of long takes, with much spectacular tracking movement of the camera, and Welles' revolutionary use of the lightning mix and sound montage exceeds even his ____________________
* This figure includes postproduction costs. Only about 7 percent of it, or 59,207 dollars, went to the construction of Kane's record number of 116 sets. By contrast, the many fewer sets of The Magnificent Ambersons cost 137,265 dollars, or about 13.5 percent of that film's total budget of 1,013,760 dollars.
** In addition, one scene was reshot by the editor, Robert Wise, and another by Mercury Theatre business manager Jack Moss. For years it was thought that the forty-five minutes of cut footage might exist somewhere in the vaults of Paramount Pictures, which had bought portions of the RKO feature library in 1958, but in The Magnificent Ambersons: A Reconstruction (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), Robert Carringer maintains that RKO burned the negative trims and outtakes for lack of storage space—a relatively common practice at the time. There is still the possibility that an original preview print might surface someday, but in its absence Carringer provides a textual edition of The Magnificent Ambersons, using the March 12, 1942, cutting continuity to indicate what was excised from the original version of the release print, what scenes were reordered, and what new footage was shot by others and integrated into the film while Welles was in Brazil.
† Welles' notoriously difficult personality also figured in his alienation from (and of) the American film industry.
-411
own earlier work. Though the eighty-eight-minute version which has survived can only hint at the epic sweep of the original, The Magnificent Ambersons as it stands today is a masterpiece of mood, decor, and composition in depth. It is also a remarkably intelligent and prophetic film which suggests (in 1942, and in a story set in 1905) that the quality of American life will ultimately be destroyed by the automobile and urbanization. The Magnificent Ambersons, distributed on a double bill with a Lupe Velez comedy, was a commercial disaster. So was Journey into Fear (1942; released 1943), a stylish adaptation of an Eric Ambler espionage novel set in the Middle East, starring Welles and the Mercury Players, and co-directed by Welles (uncredited) and Norman Foster (1900-1976).
With his third box-office failure behind him, Welles was recalled from Brazil and removed from It's All True, which was never completed; the Mercury Players were given forty-eight hours to clear off the RKO lot. Originally entitled Pan-American, It's All True was to have been a fourpart anthology feature shot on location in the United States, Mexico, and Brazil, with the purpose of promoting hemispheric cooperation as part of FDR's anti-Nazi "Good Neighbor Policy." (Behind the venture was Nelson Rockefeller, then Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and a major RKO stockholder; in neither role did he lack self-interest-see note, p. 439. ) The project was terminated for various financial and political reasons, and much of the film's negative, including a Technicolor carnival sequence shot in Rio, dumped into Santa Monica Bay. * This
____________________
* In 1985, eighteen to twenty hours of Welles' Brazilian footage, including three Technicolor sequences, were found in an old RKO vault by Paramount Pictures executive Fred Chandler (Paramount having bought Desilu Studios, which had earlier acquired RKO's production facilities). This was used to produce a twenty-two-minute documentary on the film's central sequence, "Four Men in a Raft," which debuted at the Venice Film Festival in 1986 and attracted considerable attention. (In the same year, a Brazilian docudrama, Nem tudo e verdade [Not Everything Is True, directed by Rogerio Sganzerla] recounted the film's troubled production history from a Latino perspective. ) Over the next six years, an international team of production artists, archivists, and scholars led by Los Angeles-based film- maker Myron Meisel put together a ninety-minute documentary feature on the making of
-412-
was the beginning of a long-standing antagonism between Welles and those who ran the American film industry, an antagonism which was never fully resolved. Welles returned to broadcasting and the theater for the remainder of the war, though his striking performance as Rochester in Jane Eyre (directed in 1943 by Robert Stevenson, whom Welles seems to have influenced) did much to establish him as a popular film actor (a circumstance which would later permit him to finance his own productions when times got hard, as they frequently did).
In 1945, Welles returned to Hollywood to direct and star in The Stranger (1946) for the newly formed International Pictures, but was required to adhere closely to an existing script and a pre-arranged editing schedule. Welles submitted to the condition, and the resulting film is an intentional if preposterous self-parody about the tracking down of a Nazi war criminal (Welles) who is, somehow, posing as a master at a New England prep school and is married to the headmaster's daughter (Loretta Young). Technically, the film is fairly conventional, and Welles regarded it as his worst. Nevertheless, nationally distributed by RKO, its commercial success helped him to land a job at Columbia directing his brilliant and exotic essay in film noir, The Lady from Shanghai (1947; released 1948), which starred Welles and his second wife, Rita Hayworth (1918-87). This bizarre film of corruption, murder, and betrayal is cast in the form of a thriller, but its theme is the moral anarchy of the postwar world. Though its intricate, rambling plot is almost impossible to follow, * cinematically the film is one of Welles' finest achievements: the haunting sequence shots of the assignation between Welles and Hayworth in the San Francisco Aquarium, the perfectly cut chase in the Chinese theater, and, most of all, the montage of the two-way shootout in the hall of mirrors which concludes the film have become textbook examples of Welles' genius. Because of the obscurity of its narrative, The Lady from Shanghai was a financial failure, and Welles became persona non grata in Hollywood for nearly a decade.
____________________
It's All True which premiered at the New York Film Festival in 1993. At the film's core are reconstructed versions of "Four Men in a Raft" and Technicolor sequences from two other segments—"The Story of the Samba" and "My Friend Bonito"—which show an extraordinary film artist working at the height of his creative powers.
* A fact abetted by Harry Cohn, president of Columbia Pictures, who held up the film's release by a year (it was originally completed in 1946) while it was re-edited, redubbed, and rescored under Welles' supervision.
-414-
In order to continue making films, he was forced to exile himself to Europe, but before he left, he turned out a final Mercury Theatre production—a nightmarishly expressionistic version of Macbeth (1948) shot in twenty-three days on papier-mâché and cardboard sets for the B-studio, Republic Pictures. More Welles than Shakespeare, with Welles playing Macbeth, the film still manages to convey an atmosphere of brooding evil and to create a convincing portrait of a man driven by ambition beyond the bounds of the moral universe (a characteristic theme of both Shakespeare and Welles) in a culture which has only just emerged from barbarism. Originally 112 minutes long, Macbeth was cut to eighty-six minutes by its producers after Welles had left for Europe, and the sound‐track—in which the actors spoke with Scottish burrs for verisimilitude—was rerecorded to "Americanize" the accents. This recut, redubbed version was the only one known in the United States until 1979, when a UCLA archivist discovered the original among the university's collection of NTA Film Services (Republic's distributor) nitrate prints. In 1980, Macbeth was restored to its original form through a joint endeavor of UCLA and the Folger Shakespeare Library, complete with the Scottish‐ accented soundtrack and an eight-minute overture by the film's composer, Jacques Ibert. Among the most startling discoveries within the missing footage was a ten-minute-long take of continuous dramatic action, probably the first ever attempted in a theatrical film Hitchcock's Rope went into production a few months after Welles' film was completed).
In moving to Europe, Welles lost the great technical and financial resources of the Hollywood studios, but he gained much in creative freedom. As a result, his European films tend to be technically imperfect and imaginatively unrestrained. The first of these was another Shakespeare adaptation, Othello (1952), with Welles in the title role; the film was made over a period of four years from 1948 to 1952, while Welles financed the production by acting in other people's films. With interiors shot all over Europe and exteriors shot in the ancient citadel at Mogador, Morocco, Othello is a film of light and openness—of wind, sun, and sea—as opposed to the brooding darkness of Macbeth and The Lady from Shanghai. Continuously recast, reshot, recut, and redubbed, Othello nevertheless won the Grand Prix at the Cannes Film Festival when it was finally completed in 1952. * (Welles bequeathed the rights to Othello to his daughter Beatrice Welles-Smith, and in 1989 she embarked on a five-hundred-thousand-dollar restoration project with Chicago-based filmmakers Michael Dawson and Arne Saks. The restored Othello, based on Welles' original nitrate negative, was released to mark its fortieth anniversary in 1992; the original dialogue track was remixed
____________________
* Actually, it shared the prize with Renato Castellani's comedy Due soldi di speranza (Two Pennyworth of Hope, 1952).
-416-
with newly created sound effects and a digital rerecording of the original score. )
Welles' next film, Mr. Arkadin (British title: Confidential Report, 1955), a failed attempt to remake Citizen Kane in European terms, was shot on an extremely low budget during an eight-month period in Spain, Germany, and France. On the French Riviera, a down-at-the-heels adventurer named Van Stratten is hired by the mysterious European business tycoon Gregory Arkadin (based on the real-life war profiteer Miles Krueger, and played by Welles) to piece together the details of his buried past. Van Stratten's Kafkaesque quest takes him all over Europe as he interviews the people who possess the secrets of Arkadin's past life, only to discover at the end of the film that he is the finger-man in a murder plot whereby the tycoon is systematically destroying all who can reveal his criminal past as soon as they are identified. Poorly acted, written, and recorded, with Welles himself dubbing in the voices of most of the other characters, Mr. Arkadin is an ambitious and intermittently brilliant failure.
No such difficulties attend Touch of Evil (1958), for which Welles returned to Hollywood for the first time in ten years. Universal, still a minor studio, had signed Welles and Charlton Heston to play the leads in what was to be a conventional police melodrama, and Heston insisted that Welles also direct. Welles accepted the job and was permitted to rewrite the script, turning it into a nightmarish parable of the abuse of power in a dark and sinister world. Shot against the garish background of Venice, California, Touch of Evil is another study of a man like Kane, Macbeth, and Arkadin, whose obsession with control causes him to transgress the laws of the moral universe. Hank Quinlan (Welles), a police captain in a seamy Mexican-American border town, has spent thirty years framing murder suspects about whose guilt he had "a hunch" in order to insure their conviction. He ultimately runs afoul of an honest Mexican narcotics agent (Heston) who exposes his practices and indirectly causes his death. The grotesque, inflated, and yet somehow sympathetic Quinlan is superbly played by Welles as a man whose once strong character has been utterly corrupted by an obsession.
As a director, Welles demanded the impossible from the cinematographer Russell Metty (who also shot The Stranger) and got it. The film opens with a continuous moving crane shot (unfortunately obscured in the release print by the credits), which begins with a close-up of a time bomb and ends with the explosion of the device in a car nearly two and a half minutes later, making it one of the longest unbroken tracking shots attempted before the advent of the Steadicam (see p. 1). Later, Metty was required to track his camera from the exterior of a building through a lobby and into a crowded elevator, and then ride up five floors to shoot Heston greeting the occupants as the doors slide open from within. There is also significant use of deep-focus photography and sound montage for the first time since The Lady from Shanghai (1947). Like Welles' previous films, Touch of Evil was shot in high-contrast black and white. Ignored in every country but France (where it won the Cannes Grand Prix) in the year of its release, Touch of Evil is today considered a Welles masterpiece whose technical brilliance and thematic depth bring it close to the stature of Kane. When it was released, the film was cut from 108 to ninety-five minutes under the supervision of Universal postproduction head Ernest Nims to make its editing continuity easier for contemporary audiences to follow. * In 1976, the deleted footage was restored by Universal, and Welles' original version was released for distribution in 16mm and, subsequently, on video cassette. The restoration resolves certain obscurities of dialogue in the 1958 version and provides for a fuller characterization of the film's protagonists.
But the film's financial failure in 1958 confirmed Welles' status as a pariah in Hollywood; he returned to Europe, where French producers offered him an opportunity to direct a film based on a major literary work of his choice. He selected Kafka's novel The Trial, published in 1925. Despite budgeting problems, The Trial (1962) became the only one of his films since Kane over which Welles exercised total control. His customary visual complexity notwithstanding, the results are disappointing. Shot in black-and-white in the streets of Zagreb, Croatia (then Yugoslavia), and in the fantastic Gare d'Orsay in Paris, the film finally fails to evoke the antiseptic modern hell of Kafka's novel, perhaps because of some disparity between the world views of the two artists.
____________________
* As Nims would later remark: "He [Welles] was ahead of his time. He was making those quick cuts—in the middle of a scene you cut to another scene and then come back and finish the scene and then cut to the last half of the other scene" (quoted in Barbara Leaming, Orson Welles: A Biography [New York: Viking, 1985], p. 428). Specifically, Nims recut the film's first five reels to conform to conventional continuity practice, deleted certain auditory shock effects Welles had devised for the soundtrack, and added several inserts shot by Universal contract director Harry Keller (b. 1915—The Face in the Mirror, 1958). See John Belton, "A New Map of the Labyrinth: The Unretouched Touch of Evil," Movietone News,
no. 47 (January 21, 1976): 1-9, and no. 48 (February 29, 1976): 23.
-418
Welles' next European film and his last completed feature, Chimes at Midnight (British title: Falstaff, 1966), is widely regarded as a masterpiece. Returning to an idea that he had first tried in his 1938 Theater Guild production Five Kings, Welles assembled all the Falstaff parts from Henry IV, Parts I and II, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Henry V, and linked them together with a narration from Holinshed's Chronicles (the medieval source of Shakespeare's history plays) to create a portrait of the character as his privileged friendship with Prince Hal passes gradually from affection to bitterness, disillusionment, and decay. Like Citizen Kane, it is a film about decline and loss, and like The Magnificent Ambersons, it is full of nostalgia for a vanished past; but it is as much the work of an older man as Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons are the work of a younger one. Shot in Spain (for financial reasons) over a period of several years, Chimes at Midnight is superbly photographed and acted, with Welles at his best in the title role. Its moving crane shots have been widely praised, and the lengthy montage sequence depicting the Battle of Shrewsbury has been favorably compared to Eisenstein's Odessa Steps sequence in Potemkin (1925) and the Battle on the Ice in Alexander Nevski (1938). Yet Chimes at Midnight is anything but technically extravagant. It is rather a quiet, elegiac, and dignified film whose restrained style and austere black-and-white photography correspond perfectly with its sober themes of human frailty, mortality, and decay.
It is no longer possible—as it was, perhaps, even several years ago—to speak of Orson Welles as a director important for a single, if monumental and awe-inspiring, film. Welles produced five masterpieces—Citizen Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil, and Chimes at Midnight—and his Shakespearean films, extravagant and eccentric as they sometimes are, represent major contributions to the genre. In Citizen Kane he gave us the first modern sound film and effectively pioneered the aesthetic of the long take, or composition in depth. All of his films of the forties significantly anticipated the contemporary cinema of widescreen photography and stereophonic sound. But technological wizardry notwithstanding, Welles produced a body of work which deserves to be ranked with the great narrative art of our century.
Welles was a traditional moralist whose major themes were characteristically those of classical Western literature: the corrupting nature of ambition; the disparity between social and psychological reality; the destructive power of self-delusion, appetite, and obsession; and the importance of a sense of the past. Confirming these thematic concerns was his intermittent work from 1955 until his death in 1985 on a version of Don Quixote set in modern times (a more or less complete work print of which is currently being restored by Welles' companion and collaborator Oja Kodar). Stylistically, however, Welles was always an innovator and a radical experimenter—an authentic American expressionist with a decidedly baroque sense of form which has profoundly influenced the course of Western cinema.
In his latter years, he made several attempts to become an active part of that cinema again, in collaboration with Kodar, as his principal scriptwriter and actress, and the cinematographer Gary Graver, most notably in the still unreleased The Other Side of the Wind. This three-hour color film, which Welles described as "96-percent finished" in 1979, stars John Huston as a Welles-like director contemplating his career in flashback at the end of his life. In a tribute presented to him by the American Film Institute in 1975, Welles showed some provocative footage from it in an unsuccessful attempt to raise money for its completion. Between 1978 and 1985, he worked on The Dreamers, a romantic adventure story based upon two of Isak Dinesen's Gothic Tales, but only a few scenes of it were actually shot.
When he died, Welles was working on a long-cherished project—his own adaptation of King Lear in video, with himself in the title role and Kodar as Cordelia—which also remained unfinished. Welles' death on October 10, 1985, was mourned around the world, appropriately, as the passing of a twentieth-century American genius. It is difficult to know who or what to blame for the wasteful attenuation of his later career, and it is probably better not to try. But surely Welles would have appreciated the irony in the fact that only his death would make a whole generation of Americans aware that its favorite public fat man and talk-show raconteur was the single most important architect of the modern film. As Jean-Luc Godard observed of him at the height of the French New Wave, "Everyone will always owe him everything." *
____________________
* Quoted in Michel Ciment, "Les Enfants terrible," American Film (December 1984): 42. Welles made several important films of less-than-feature length as well. The Immortal Story (Histoire immortelle, 1968), based on a novella by Isak Dinesen, was written and directed by Welles for France's nationalized television company, ORTF. Running fifty-eight minutes, it was Welles' first film in color and stars Welles, Jeanne Moreau, and Fernando Rey. The Deep (also called Dead Calm or Dead Reckoning) was written and directed by Welles, and was shot by Gary Graver off the Dalmatian coast of Yugoslavia between 1967 and 1969.
Based on the novel Dead Calm by Charles Williams, the film stars Welles, Jeanne Moreau, Laurence Harvey, Oja Kodar, and Michael Bryant. There is a plot summary of The Deep, based on an early version of the script, in James Naremore's The Magic World of Orson Welles, Revised edition (Dallas: SMU Press, 1989); The Deep was completed but remains unreleased because of continuity gaps resulting from the death of Harvey in 1973 and the undubbed part of Moreau. In 1969 Welles shot an abridged color version of The Merchant of Venice in Trogir, Yugoslavia, and Asolo, Italy, which was completed, edited, scored, and mixed, but remains unreleased due to the theft of two of its reels; Kodar is currently at work
on a reconstruction. Finally—and most significantly—Welles wrote and codirected with the French documentarist François Reichenbach F for Fake (1975; released in France as Vérités et mensonges, 1973), a hybrid documentary about the dynamic of fakery. It focuses on the famous art forger Elmyr de Hory; his biographer (and the fraudulent pseudobiographer of Howard Hughes), Clifford Irving; and Welles himself, who as director of the film, is the chief illusionist among them. According to William Johnson in his Film Quarterly review of F for Fake (Summer 1976), the film provides a "commentary on the ontology of the film medium" and that medium's "specious realism." In 1978 the documentary Filming Othello (also known as The Making of Othello) was produced for West German television by Klaus and Jeurgen Hellweg; it featured interviews with the cast and crew of the 1952 Mercury Films Production and narrated footage of the original film—all of it directed by Welles. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 93 | https://fourstarfilmfan.com/2016/03/15/citizen-kane-1941-review/ | en | Review: Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://fourstarfilmfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/cropped-mildredpierce1-1.png",
"https://fourstarfilmfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/citizenk3.png?w=584",
"https://fourstarfilmfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/citizenk2.png?w=584",
"https://fourstarfilmfan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/citizenk1.p... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2016-03-15T00:00:00 | "That's all he ever wanted out of life... was love. That's the tragedy of Charles Foster Kane. You see, he just didn't have any to give." - Jedediah Leyland It might seem rather trite to attempt to write anything on Citizen Kane, but as someone who can admittedly be trite sometimes, there seems to be… | en | https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/6ba31e3ae613f231aa77490ef6cf3a0f0a44fa6750821430e306cccb763c9802?s=32 | 4 Star Films | https://fourstarfilmfan.com/2016/03/15/citizen-kane-1941-review/ | “That’s all he ever wanted out of life… was love. That’s the tragedy of Charles Foster Kane. You see, he just didn’t have any to give.” – Jedediah Leyland
It might seem rather trite to attempt to write anything on Citizen Kane, but as someone who can admittedly be trite sometimes, there seems to be a need to give it a go. Here it goes. Citizen Kane is forever an enigma, in the sense that it was fully under the control of the independent-minded and ultimate auteur Orson Welles during the studio age. It didn’t come out of some movie making assembly line, but instead, it’s a debut that exhibits so many elements that have befuddled and fascinated audiences for generations. There’s certainly the technical and production aspect which became the watermark and inspiration for countless millions. Then you have the human aspect which also deserves some attention.
Swirling around a film with this much mythology there is always bound to be hearsay and rumors, but supposedly in later years, Welles considered Citizen Kane a comedy, in the sense that everything is over the top camp, much in the same way that Welles the man was a larger than life caricature. He played the part of an alienating artistic mastermind to a tee, and it fit the way he made this film. Grandiose in scope, infused with inspired vision, and really an all-out war for acknowledgment.
Because of the many stories about Kane which have now become the stuff of legend, the parallels between Charles Foster Kane and news magnate William Randolph Hearst stand out. Whatever his opinions of the actual film ended up being, Hearst did his best to besmirch the film and keep it out of theaters. And so it goes Welles’ debut did not get much of an opening, ironically because of a man rather like his main character. It would be interesting to know what Welles would have thought of such a situation. Would he have been greatly incensed or taken it rather like a compliment that he had created something so volatile? Because it’s true, Citizen Kane is still smoldering today, and it retains a constant place in cinematic discussions even 70 years after its release.
There’s so much to talk about and so much that most everyone has probably already talked about. It has such an intriguing narrative structure, and it models time in such fascinating ways. Because a lot of this film is about the passage of time as it pertains to one man’s life and the memories of his life. He is dead after uttering that immortal word “Rosebud,” but his memories live on through the recollections of those around him.
We get access to the story through a newsreel, but like such a reporting device we leave it knowing very little about the man except for his material possessions and maybe a little about his career. What we really want to know is the man, and the nameless reporter becomes our stand-in.
He pieces together Kane’s childhood by sitting in a musty vault and reading over the thoughts of the boy’s caretaker and financial adviser Mr. Thatcher. With one particularly memorable match cut, we jump a number of decades in a matter of seconds as the banker speaks to a young Kane only to turn around speaking to a young man. But he’s not much help except that Kane put Thatcher under fire with his brand of yellow journalism.
Mr. Bernstein is a kindly fellow and an old man by now who used to work with Kane at The Inquirer when it all began. He knew the man who had a song named after him, who bought out the staff of the rival paper The Chronicle, started his own war, and married the niece of the president.
From the now elderly and slightly infirm Jedediah Leyland (Joseph Cotten), we learn of the rise and slow decline of the man along with his friendship with Leyland. There is a sequence here with Kane’s first wife that wonderfully shows the degradation of a marriage over the years as he is more devoted to the paper than his spouse. It’s tragically sad, and there’s more heartbreak in that one scene than most films can muster in their entire runtime. Because Kane could love, and he wanted love, but he also seems to love himself more than any other person. He’s married to his work and the personal independence that comes with it. Ultimately, Kane’s political career suffers from scandal and his own bullheadedness. Leyland switches branches to get away and becomes a drama critic prepared to lambaste the operatic debut of Kane’s second wife. It really is bad though Kane will never hear of it. He’s always in need of proving himself to those around him.
Our investigative journalist returns to the nightclub of Susan Kane to get the rest of the story from her, and it only becomes more depressing. After being forced into an opera career she has no ambition for, Kane finally relents and Susan spends her days in Xanadu, the fortress he built for her sake. But she wants more than the stuff that he can give her. She wants to get out, have fun, and have companionship. Kane doesn’t know how to do that, and soon after she left him.
What was left behind was a deeply troubled, isolated old man with nothing but material possessions to weigh him down in a river of loneliness. His life was a jigsaw puzzle and yet when we get the piece pertaining to his final word, it fails to help us make any headway. Because the reality is that no one word can explain a man’s life. It is interesting how Kane desperately wanted love so you would think that his last words would refer to a person. It just shows how messed up his relationships were. He thought he could get joy from possessions so it’s only fitting that his final words were another thing. It’s sad really, so if Orson Welles wants to call Citizen Kane comedy, there seems to be a need to qualify that and christen it a “tragi-comedy.”
Herman Mankiewicz’s script with Welles is the quintessential tale of the rise and fall of one man and with the ever-changing times, that archetypal narrative has remained prescient because America is still built on those sorts of individuals. It can be the nation of visionaries as well as tragedy. Wealth and loneliness.
As for the great Bernard Hermann, his score personifies the changes in Kane over the years and this was the first time I noticed the wonderful reprises of his theme song. It can be heard throughout although it seems to lose all the gaiety and luster it had years before.
Gregg Toland’s cinematography is strikingly beautiful utilizing the distinctly clear, deep focus to frame shots wonderfully. Background and foreground remain equally important becoming a wonderful way to convey distance. Also, the camera always seems to be making the viewer crane our necks, getting a slight view of the ceiling or it has us looking down at the figure below us. We very rarely see them head-on as they appear. Furthermore, Kane is steeped in trick shots, mirror images, and all sorts of things that I cannot even begin to do justice to. It could be a nurse walking into a room or Kane solemnly plodding through the vast corridors of his domain. It’s a veritable paradise for the eyes because we are always being met with visual marvels. Citizen Kane has grown on me every time I see it since it’s not simply narrative, or backstory, or history, but also at the most basic level, it’s one of the most prominent expressions of this highly visual medium called film.
5/5 Stars | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 65 | https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/ | en | 50 Great Movies That Bombed at the Box Office: ‘Blow Out,’ ‘Mulholland Drive,’ ‘The Fabelmans,’ and More | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=6035310&c4=&cv=3.9&cj=1",
"https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Wilson-Chapman.jpg?w=300&h=300&crop=1",
"https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Great-Movies-That-Bombed-at-the-Box-Office.png?w=1920&h=1080&crop=1",
"https://www.indiewire... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Wilson Chapman"
] | 2023-07-19T20:30:05+00:00 | Martin Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson, and Quentin Tarantino have all flopped at the box office at least once in their careers. | en | IndieWire | https://www.indiewire.com/gallery/best-films-box-office-bombs/ | No filmmaker has ascended to the apex of Hollywood — and stayed there — without surviving the occasional flop. Everyone from Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino to Martin Scorsese and Denis Villeneuve has released a film that, for whatever reason, didn’t resonate with audiences during its initial release. Filmmaking is a fickle industry, and if you make enough movies, one of them is bound to go wrong.
Many, many movies flop because they’re outright bad. In fact, if a blockbuster or big franchise movie goes wrong at the box office, it’s safe to assume that bad reviews and poor word-of-mouth is what scared audiences away. 2023 has given us plenty of examples of big-budget flops that flopped because of poor quality, like “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania”. Considering the slew of terrible superhero and action movies able to eke out a profit on name recognition alone, those are usually the most catastrophic and memorable failures.
That said, there’s a multitude of other reasons why a film can lose money at the box office. Plenty of great movies have been the victims of bad timing, ineffective marketing campaigns, or simply being too “out there” for the general public. This year has also given us examples of gems that went sadly overlooked during their theatrical runs, such as the charming family comedy “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.” Fortunately, a disappointing theatrical performance doesn’t have to be a death sentence, and many flops go on to be reevaluated as classics, cult or otherwise, in their own right. Keep reading to see some of our favorite movies that bombed at the box office.
Ryan Lattanzio, Zack Sharf, and Christian Zilko contributed to this story.
[Editor’s note: This post was published in July 2019 and has been updated multiple times since.] | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 2 | https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/27624 | en | Catalog | [
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/afi_Logo.png",
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/afi_Logo.png",
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/afi_Logo.png",
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/Icon/search.png",
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/Icon/white_search.png",
"https://catalog.af... | [] | [] | [
"Citizen Kane",
"Orson Welles",
"Edward Donahue",
"Orson Welles",
"Richard Baer",
"William Alland",
"Molly Herman",
"Sid Rogell",
"Herman J. Mankiewicz",
"Orson Welles",
"John Houseman",
"Roger Denny",
"Mollie Kent",
"Joseph Cotten",
"Dorothy Comingore",
"Agnes Moorehead",
"Ruth Warr... | null | [] | null | Seventy-year-old newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane dies in his palatial Florida home, Xanadu, after uttering the single word “Rosebud.” While watching a newsreel summarizing the years during which Kane built a dying newspaper into a major empire, married and divorced twice, ran unsuccessfully for governor and saw the collapse of his newspaper empire during the Depression, an editor decides they have not captured the essence of the controversial newspaperman and assigns reporter Jerry Thompson to discover the meaning of Kane's last word.<BR>
Thompson first approaches Kane's second wife, singer Susan Alexander, in the Atlantic City nightclub where she now performs. After the drunken Susan orders Thompson to leave, the accommodating bartender reports her claim that she had never heard of Rosebud. Next, Thompson reads the unpublished memoirs of Wall Street financier Walter Parks Thatcher, Kane's guardian and trustee of the mining fortune left | en | /favicon.ico | https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/27624 | This film's end credits begin with the statement, “Most of the principal actors in Citizen Kane are new to motion pictures. The Mercury Theatre is proud to introduce them.” Organized by Orson Welles and John Houseman in Nov 1937, The Mercury Theatre won critical acclaim for its productions, including Julius Caesar, The Shoemaker's Holiday, Heartbreak House and Danton's Death. However, it was The War of the Worlds, Welles's convincing radio portrayal of an invasion by Martians, broadcast on Halloween night, 1938, that brought him instant celebrity. According to a 1940 SEP series on Welles, Hollywood studios had offered the director a contract for $300 a week as early as 1936. Published accounts of Hollywood's interest did not appear until Jul 1939, when news items and RKO publicity announced that Welles, at age twenty-four and with no professional film experience, had signed a carte-blanche contract with RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. to produce, write, direct and act in one film per year. Welles was to be paid $150,000 per film in addition to a percentage of the gross, but more important to him was the stipulation that no one, not even RKO's president or board of directors, could interfere with him or see his work until it was completed. (Life reported that when RKO executives came on the set of Citizen Kane unannounced, Welles told his company to start a baseball game and walked off.) According to the SEP series, Welles once described the RKO studio as “the greatest railroad train a boy ever had.” In her LAEx column, Louella Parsons observed that Welles “rode into Hollyood [sic] with a contract that never has been equaled in the entire history of motion pictures” and noted that he signed with RKO after Warner Bros. and M-G-M “refused to give him all the privileges that he asked.” The Hollywood community greeted Welles with hostility. Gossip columnists repeatedly referred to him as “Little Orson Annie” and “Arson” Welles, and called attention to his beard, which he grew for stage roles and kept for his planned first film role.
Welles brought with him to Hollywood a number of staff members from the Mercury Theatre and established Mercury Productions, Inc. in partnership with Jack Moss. Early in Aug 1939, according to HR, Welles began working with John Houseman and Herbert Drake on a script for his first film, an adaptation of the Joseph Conrad novel Heart of Darkness. Welles planned to play both of the major roles, Kurtz and Marlow, and to use a subjective camera. SEP reported that he was also to be the chief scenic artist and propman. Heart of Darkness was to feature many actors from the Mercury Theatre and Welles's radio company, the Mercury Theatre of the Air, including Everett Sloane, Ray Collins, Gus Schilling, Edgar Barrier and Erskine Sanford. Austrian actress Dita Parlo was wanted for the female lead. Production was set to begin on 1 Nov 1939, but according to DV, RKO pushed back the date to give the construction department more time to build the unusual sets. Fourteen actors were on salary in Nov 1939, but in Dec 1939, pre-production was halted. RKO announced that Welles would first make The Smiler with a Knife, variously called a comedy-mystery-drama and a thriller and based on a novel by Nicholas Blake, which the studio had recently purchased and for which Welles was writing the screenplay. The lead was to be a woman, and Welles was to play a supporting role. In a later interview, Welles stated that the studio would not let him cast Lucille Ball in the lead, so the project was shelved. According to RKO publicity, before Welles began work on Citizen Kane, he “indulged himself in the most concentrated course in movie making ever attempted, with the result that he has a working knowledge of every studio department.”
The initial rough draft script of Citizen Kane is dated 16 Apr 1940 and entitled “American.” This draft, in which “Xanadu” was called the “Alhambra,” includes many scenes similar to incidents in the life of William Randolph Hearst, which were subsequently dropped. Modern sources dispute whether Welles or his co-writer, Herman J. Mankiewicz, should be given credit for the various drafts. Some sources claim that Welles tried to keep Mankiewicz's name off the screen credits, while others argue that while Mankiewicz's contract stipulated that he would not necessarily get an onscreen credit, Welles, in correspondence with his attorney, stated that he wanted Mankiewicz to get credit. In a deposition taken for a 1949 lawsuit, Welles stated that Mankiewicz wrote the dialogue for the first two drafts, and that he (Welles) worked on the third draft and “participated all along in conversations concerning the structure of the scenes.” RKO story files at UCLA Arts--Special Collections Library contain extensive notes dated 30 Apr 1940 by Welles concerning desired changes to the 16 Apr 1940 draft. Subsequently, a number of drafts and continuities were written, concluding with the third revised final script, dated 16 Jul 1940. According to modern sources, Mankiewicz claimed to the Screen Writers' Guild that he should be given sole writing credit. According to the RKO Billing Memorandum file for the film at UCLA, on 11 Jan 1941, Mankiewicz signed a statement giving his consent for advertising to omit a screenplay credit. On 18 Jan 1941, Dore Schary of the Screen Writers' Guild wrote to Mercury Productions stating that the proposed credit “screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles” seemed to be in violation of a clause in the Producer-Screen Writers' Guild Agreement which stated that “No production executives will be entitled to share in the screen play authorship screen credit unless he does the screen play writing entirely without the collaboration of any other writer.” Subsequently, on 22 Jan 1941, Welles and Mankiewicz signed a joint statement that “having carefully considered their intentions relative to the contract dated 19 Jun 1940, and having carefully considered the contribution of each of them in the writing of the original screen story for Citizen Kane," they agreed to the screen credits as they appear on the film. On 27 Jan 1941, the Screen Writers' Guild met and decided that the Guild had no jurisdiction in the matter because of the particular contract Mankiewicz had signed. A memo in the RKO files, dated 5 Jun 1941, states that both Mankiewicz and Welles worked 111 days on the screenplay: 7 Dec--23 Dec 1939; 19 Feb--11 May 1940; and 18 Jun--27 Jul 1940. The memo also indicates that Houseman worked 87 days: 21 Feb--27 Apr 1940; and 29 Apr--1 Jun 1940.
In an undated statement included in the RKO files at UCLA, Welles described his intent in making the film: “I wished to make a motion picture which was not a narrative of action so much as an examination of character. For this, I desired a man of many sides and many aspects. It was my idea to show that six or more people could have as many widely divergent opinions concerning the nature of a single personality.” After discussing how he came to choose a newspaper publisher as his main character, Welles continued, “There have been many motion pictures and novels rigorously obeying the formula of the 'success story.' I wished to do something quite different. I wished to make a picture which might be called a 'failure story.'“ Welles noted that his character “had never made what is known as 'transference' from his mother. Hence his failure with his wives.” Welles concluded, “The protagonist of my 'failure story' must retreat from a democracy which his money fails to buy and his power fails to control.--There are two retreats possible: death and the womb. The house was the womb.” In an article published in the New York publication Friday during the controversy that held up the film's release, Welles further explained his intent: “Kane, we are told, loved only his mother--only his newspaper--only his second wife--only himself. Maybe he loved all of these, or none. It is for the audience to judge....He is never judged with the objectivity of an author, and the point of the picture is not so much the solution of the problem as its presentation.”
In an interview, Welles stated that Gregg Toland, who won the Academy Award in 1940 for his work on Wuthering Heights, asked to work with him. Toland, in a Popular Photography article, stated that with the backing of Welles, who had a reputation for experimentation in the theater, he “was able to test and prove several ideas generally accepted as being radical in Hollywood circles.” In an article in AmCin, Toland explained the rationale and technique of the “radical departures from conventional practice” that he and Welles devised for Citizen Kane. They felt “that if it was possible, the picture should be brought to the screen in such a way that the audience would feel it was looking at reality, rather than merely at a movie.” They rejected direct cuts, wherever possible, favoring instead “to plan action so that the camera could pan or dolly from one angle to another” or to pre-plan “our angles and compositions so that action which ordinarily would be shown in direct cuts would be shown in a single, longer scene--often one in which important action might take place simultaneously in widely separated points in extreme foreground and background.”
Because of the film's huge, deep sets, twin-arc broadsides, which were developed for Technicolor film, were used for lighting. With increased illumination, use of the new super speed emulsion Super XX, as well as wide-angle lenses coated with the recently developed Vard “Opticoat” non-glare coating, and stopping down, became possible. Toland relates, “we photographed nearly all of our interior scenes at apertures not greater than f:8--and often smaller.” At that time, most Hollywood films were shot with apertures between f:2.3 and f:3.2. Use of the 24mm lens was virtually unheard of, according to a 1947 NYT article, because of “the cruelty with which it exposes facial flaws in actors and actresses. Orson Welles employed it extensively in his notable Citizen Kane in 1940, but since then it has been largely relegated to the documentary field.” Toland, through experimentation, was able to get sharp focus in even the larger sets, which extended the length of two stages at the RKO-Pathé studio, a distance of 200 feet. For purposes of realism, Welles and Toland ordered that ceilings be built for the majority of their sets and planned “unusually low camera-setups, so that we could shoot upward and take advantage of the more realistic effects of those ceilings.” Another advantage of the ceilings, which were made of acoustically pourous muslin, was that microphones could be placed above them to avoid problems with shadows. In a Theatre Arts article, Toland noted that they spent four days perfecting the scene in which Mrs. Kane signs Thatcher's papers while young Charles plays with his sled in the snow.
Citizen Kane was the first film to be printed on a newly developed fine grain positive, which, according to HR, “improves the fidelity of both sound recording and re-recording through removal of fine particles of silver nitrate that formerly dotted all positive prints.” Toland insisted on using the new fine grain release positive, and according to RKO memos, RKO president George J. Schaefer agreed to change the lab for the film to Consolidated from De Luxe, which could not do the job because the new stock required about twenty times the normal intensity of printing lighting. In recognition of Toland's contributions to the picture, Welles signed a waiver with the Screen Directors' Guild in Feb 1941, authorizing his own credit card to include Toland's photography credit.
Photographic makeup and wardrobe tests for the production, which was then called “Orson Welles #3,” began on 16 Apr 1940, with Russell Metty as cameraman. Metty also shot tests on 26 Apr and 1 May, showing Welles at varying ages. According to LAT, the film was announced in May at RKO's annual convention in New York and at that time was called John Citizen, U.S.A. This title is not included in an RKO list of working titles, however. Toland is first credited for tests shot on 14 Jun 1940. On 19 Jun 1940, a test was shot with Welles, Joseph Cotten and Evelyn Meyers, in the role of “Susan.” Production records for 24 Jun 1940 indicate that Ruth Warrick also tested for the role of “Susan”; because no other source, contemporary or modern, including Warrick's autobiography, mentions that she was under consideration for the role, this may have been an erroneous entry. Dorothy Comingore, then called Linda Winters, the name she used in a number of films in the 1930s, made her first test on 1 Jul 1940 with Welles, William Alland and Terry Belmont , who was not in the final film.
On 29 Jun 1940, the projection room scene in which “News on the March” is shown, was shot. It is listed in the RKO production records as a test, as were scenes shot on the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 22th, 23rd, 24th and 25th of Jul 1940. Scenes shot during this period that were kept in the final film include Thompson's first meeting with Susan; Kane's discovery of Susan's suicide attempt; Kane slapping Susan in the tent in the Everglades; Kane speaking from a flag-draped platform; Kane being interviewed on the boat deck; Susan confronting Kane in their Chicago hotel room; Susan's singing lesson with Signor Matiste; Kane shaking hands with Chamberlain; and Kane standing with Hitler and Goering. In later interviews, Welles explained that he shot these scenes under the guise of tests, so that once begun, the RKO front office, with whom he had been having difficulties, would find it hard to stop the film.
Welles entertained the press at a party on 1 Aug 1940 with footage from the White House wedding party scene. The press speculated on the film's subject matter, which Welles purposely kept secret. Although NYT reported the official version--that the film “covers the last sixty years of the American scene” and that Welles's role was that of a “robber baron industrialist”--HR, on 29 Jul 1940, stated, “despite denials from the Orson Welles contingent, insiders insist Little Orson Annie's flicker is based on the life of a well-known publisher. Treatment of the personality is sympathetic throughout.”
Principal shooting continued until 23 Oct 1940, with two halts due to illnesses of Toland and Welles. On 10 Aug 1940, during the scene in which Kane yells at Boss Jim Gettys on the steps of Susan's second apartment, Welles fell about ten feet and suffered a chipped ankle. For two weeks, he shot around himself and directed from a wheelchair. On days when Welles filmed scenes requiring a lot of makeup, he would report to work before dawn and hold conferences as makeup artist Maurice Seiderman worked on his face. On 30 Aug, the company worked through the night on a rewritten scene depicting Leland confronting Kane after Kane loses the election. Welles reworked scenes as he shot and often gave extras lines to speak that were not in the script. Considerable time was spent after 30 Oct 1940 with inserts, added scenes, special effects, retakes and a trailer. Beginning 20 Nov, Harry Wild took over as cameraman, shooting the trailer and some scenes in the newsreel, including the Union Square speaker and the Spanish generals with Kane. The final shot, of Alland in front of the hospital before his interview with Leland, was taken on 4 Jan 1941 by cameraman Russ Cully, who also photographed one day in Dec 1940.
On 15 Jul 1940, Joseph I. Breen, director of the Production Code Administration, pointed out in a letter to RKO that one scene in the script was in violation of the Code because of its setting in a brothel. Despite the warning, Welles filmed the scene, which occurs after the party at The Inquirer office celebrating the acquisition of The Chronicle staff. The scene includes actresses Joan Blair and Frances Neal, playing “Georgie,” the madam, and “Ethel,” a prostitute whom Georgie introduces to Leland, respectively. This scene was not in the final film. Joan Blair does appear as one of the dancers in the party scene, however. Another scene was cut: in The Inquirer's composing room, during the night before Kane's first paper is to hit the streets, editor Carter resigns, and Kane commands the composing room foreman Smathers to remake the pages five minutes before they are to go to press. When Smathers objects, Kane shoves the forms of type onto the floor and tells him that after proofs are pulled, he will check the pages again and “then, if I can't find any way to improve them again--I suppose we'll have to go to press.” Smathers was played by Benny Rubin, who was originally listed in the credit titles. On 21 Jan 1941, after his scene was cut, a memo was sent from Richard Baer (Welles's assistant, who, under the name Richard Barr, later became a well-known theatrical producer and director) to Douglas Travers stating Rubin's credit must be eliminated. According to production reports, Ed Hemmer was also in the cut scene.
Edgar Barrier was originally considered for the roles of Rawlston and Raymond. Glenn Turnbull and Carl Thomas, hired as a song-and-dance team for The Inquirer party sequence, participated in rehearsals but not in filming. Albert Frazier is listed in production files as a man in a gorilla suit for Xanadu zoo scenes, but no gorilla character appears in the completed picture. Joe Recht's voice was used in re-recording. Pat O'Malley's listing in the Dec 1940 Players Directory Bulletin includes Citizen Kane in his credits, but no confirming evidence concerning his participation has been located. Earl Seaman was scheduled to play a stagehand, but was not listed in the production reports.
The scene in which cars drive along a beach on the way to the Everglades picnic was actually shot at Point Mugu, CA, and some shots of the exterior of Xanadu in the “News on the March” sequence were taken at Balboa Park in San Diego, and at Busch Gardens in Florida, according to RKO Production Records. Stock footage for the film was obtained from Pathé News, including segments entitled “Red Party, Strikes, Etc.,” “Graveyard of Ships,” “Fang and Claw” and “White Wings,” and from General Film Library, Inc., including segments entitled “San Francisco Earthquake” and “Spanish American War.” Notes dated 18 Apr 1940 on suggested shots to be included in the newsreel sequence state that the Congressional Investigating Committee scene would be a reproduction of an existing J. P. Morgan newsreel.
Citizen Kane marked the screen debut of many actors, including Cotten, Warrick, Agnes Moorehead, Ray Collins, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane and Paul Stewart, all of whom had worked with Welles in theater productions or radio broadcasts. According to RKO records, Sloane was paid $2,400 “in consideration for shaving his head.” Citizen Kane was also the first film for composer Bernard Herrmann, who had worked with Welles on the radio. Although Van Nest Polglase got screen credit as art director, it was the practice at RKO for Polglase, head of the department, to get credit on all RKO films, no matter what his contribution. According to Welles, Perry Ferguson designed all the sets, which numbered over 110. Welles, in trade paper ads the day of the film's Hollywood premiere, gave thanks “to everybody who gets screen credit for Citizen Kane and thanks to those who don't: to all the actors, the crew, the office, the musicians, everybody, and particularly to Maurice Seiderman, the best makeup man in the world.” According to a memo dated 5 Nov 1940, Welles wanted to give screen credit to Seiderman, who later worked with him on Touch of Evil. RKO officials were reluctant to give screen credit for makeup and perhaps establish a precedent, and pointed out that giving credit to Seiderman, an apprentice, “might jeopardize his personal situation with the Union,” according to a 23 Nov 1940 memo. Welles continued to insist that Seiderman's name be included in the credits, until 13 Jan 1941, when a memo issued by Welles through Richard Baer dictated that makeup credits be eliminated. Welles also decided to remove credit for set decorations. Although Hugh McDowell was the soundman from 22 Jul through 3 Sep, he also did not receive screen credit.
In an article written for NYT in May 1941, Herrmann revealed that Welles allowed him twelve weeks to write the score, a much longer time than was usually alloted to the composer. Herrmann was thus able to “work out a general artistic plan” and “to do my own orchestration and conducting.” Instead of writing the music after the film was completely shot, the practice with most Hollywood films, Herrmann was able to work as the film progressed, allowing for many sequences to be “tailored to match the music,” particularly the montages, for which he wrote complete musical numbers. Herrmann composed two main motifs: “One--a simple four-note figure in the brass--is that of Kane's power....The second motif is that of Rosebud. Heard as a solo on the vibraphone, it first appears during the death scene at the very beginning of the picture. It is heard again and again throughout the film under various guises, and if followed closely, is a clue to the ultimate identity of Rosebud itself.” Herrmann commented that he used “radio scoring,” musical cues lasting only a few seconds, a great deal, that “most of the cues were orchestrated for unorthodox instrumental combinations” and that sound effects were blended with music to intensify scenes. The music included in the “News on the March” segment, Herrmann noted, was taken from the RKO files.
Work was completed by 18 Jan 1941, and a complete print was ready for screening. The film, as of 21 Jan, was 11,041 feet, or approximately 123 minutes, according to a report from editor Robert Wise. Subsequently, the film was cut to 10,734 feet, or 119 minutes. According to an RKO cost sheet dated 28 Mar 1942, the final cost of the film was $839,727. Before production, the budget was estimated at $723,800. The film was scheduled to have its premiere on 14 Feb 1941 at Radio City Music Hall, but complications set in after a screening given on 9 Jan 1941 for Louella Parsons, motion picture editor of the Hearst papers. According to DV, Parsons insisted on a screening after an article about the film appeared in Friday, in which Welles ridiculed her for previously praising him and stated, “Wait until the woman finds out that the picture is about her boss.” Friday subsequently allowed Welles space to deny that he ever spoke the quote, but meanwhile, Hearst editors were ordered to keep publicity, advertisements and reviews of all RKO films out of their newspapers. Parsons threatened RKO president George J. Schaefer that Hearst would bring a great deal of pressure on the motion picture industry if the film were released. According to NYT, Louis B. Mayer of M-G-M and Harry M. Warner of Warner Bros. were then contacted, and Hearst representatives began investigating the “alien” situation in Hollywood, “something about which the industry is most sensitive.” Adela Rogers St. John , a Hearst columnist, began gathering information for a story on Welles's romantic adventures, and a Congressional investigation of Hollywood was hinted at by Senator Burton K. Wheeler.
In a statement printed in NYT in Jan 1941, Welles contended that the film “is not based upon the life of Mr. Hearst or anyone else. On the other hand, had Mr. Hearst and similar financial barons not lived during the period we discuss, Citizen Kane could not have been made.” In the previously quoted statement on the intent of the film, found in the RKO story files at UCLA, Welles noted that in order to show the many divergent opinions concerning one individual, he decided that his character should be “an extremely public man.” He considered using a fictitious president, but “deciding against this, I could find no other position in public life beside that of a newspaper publisher in which a man of enormous wealth exercises what might be called real power in a democracy....The history of the newspaper business obviously demanded that Kane be what is generally referred to as a yellow journalist.” Welles wrote that once he chose his subject, “it was impossible for me to ignore American history....My picture could not begin the career of such a man in 1890 and take it to 1940 without presenting the man with the same problems which presented themselves to his equivalents in real life.”
In the foreword to a memoir by Marion Davies, Hearst's mistress, Welles notes that everything in Citizen Kane was invented except for the telegram Kane orders to be sent to his reporter in Cuba (“You provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war”), which was based on the well-known wire Hearst sent to illustrator Frederick Remington (“You make the pictures, I'll make the war”) and Kane's “crazy art collection.” While acknowledging parallels, Welles points out that Hearst was born rich and was the “pampered son of an adoring mother,” whereas Kane was born poor and reared by a bank. Welles states, “It was a real man who built an opera house for the soprano of his choice, and much in the movie was borrowed from that story, but the man was not Hearst.” Others have speculated that Kane is not so much a portrayal of Hearst as a composite of a number of powerful men of the time, including Samuel Insull, Joseph Pulitzer, Charles A. Dana, Joseph Medill Patterson, James Gordon Bennett II, Frank A. Munsey, Harold Fowler McCormick and Colonel Robert McCormick. Indeed, on 8 Nov 1940, photographs of a number of famous publishers including Hearst, Pulitzer, McCormick, Patterson, Lord Northcliffe, Lord Beaverbrook, Bonfils and Sommes were ordered for the film to be reproduced for the “News on the March” sequence. Welles contended that Susan Alexander “bears no resemblance at all” to Marion Davies, whom he calls “one of the most delightfully accomplished comediennes in the whole history of the screen.”
Some modern sources claim that Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies' genitalia was “Rosebud” and that Hearst threatened to expose details of the sexual lives of personages in Hollywood if the film were released. According to HR, Hearst saw the film's script in Sep 1940 and “shot it back without a word.” As Kane's dying word “Rosebud” was in the script at that time, it is unclear why, if the story about “Rosebud” was true, he took no action until the film was completed. (In Mar 1941, in Welles's New York production of Native Son, a child's sled bearing the name “Rosebud” was used as a prop, according to HR.)
According to an 8 Mar 1941 memo, Schaefer wanted a clearance title attached to the film. Two possible clearance titles suggested on 3 Apr 1941 were: “This is not the story of any man, be he living or dead. Kane, and all other characters involved in this picture are wholly imaginary” and “Citizen Kane is not the story of the life of any man. It is the story of the forces that move in the lives of many great men, as seen through the eyes of lesser men.” According to a modern source, Welles objected and wrote his own clearance title, which was added to the film and later deleted. It read, “Citizen Kane is an examination of the personal character of a public man, a portrait according to the testimony of the intimates of his life. These, and Kane himself, are wholly fictitious.”
According to DV, the Hearst ban on mentioning or advertising RKO product ended on 30 Jan 1941 for all RKO films except Citizen Kane. Hearst's forces tried a number of tactics to stop its release, including, according to DV, stirring up the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars and other patriotic groups; sending photographers to get “personal” pictures of Welles while he was at Palm Springs; and persistently inquiring at the draft board as to the reason Welles was not drafted. Welles, in a later interview, stated that he was warned one evening by a policeman not to return to his hotel room because an underaged, undressed girl and photographers had been sent there as a setup, a situation that could have resulted in a jail sentence. In Apr 1941, after a radio broadcast of His Honor, the Mayor, written and narrated by Welles, the Hearst papers launched an attack on “The Free Company” series, of which the broadcast was a part, and on Welles himself, whom they labeled Communistic and un-American. Welles replied in a statement to newspapers that the attack was unfounded and based solely on Hearst's displeasure with Citizen Kane.
In Feb 1941, DV reported that a rift had occurred in RKO's board regarding whether the film should be released, and that Welles, who had 25% interest in the film, privately threatened to take legal steps if the release was delayed. After Radio City Music Hall declined to premiere the film, HR reported a rumor that Henry Luce, publisher of Time, offered one million dollars for the negative, intending to release it. Modern sources cite rumors that Louis B. Mayer, worried about Hearst's threats against the industry, tried to buy the negative from RKO in order to destroy it. By Mar 1941, after a number of special screenings, HR reported that “the guess of 98 percent of those who have seen the picture is that it will never be released--can't be released other than under a threat of suits that Mr. W. R. Hearst will level against any theatre showing the film.” On 11 Mar, Welles threatened to sue RKO for breach of contract and to attempt to obtain a court order to guarantee the picture's release if he did not receive proof within twenty-four hours that RKO would give the film an early release. Welles himself offered to buy the film, but RKO, after a preview to the trade press in Hollywood and New York on 9 Apr, scheduled the world premiere at the Palace Theatre in New York on 1 May. Subsequently, the film had its Hollywood premiere at the El Capitan on 8 May 1941.
Critics exuberantly praised the film. HR called it “a great motion picture.” Bosley Crowther of NYT wrote, “Citizen Kane is far and away the most surprising and cinematically exciting motion picture to be seen here in many a moon. As a matter of fact, it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood.” FD stated, “In Citizen Kane, the cinema assures anew that its romper days are over and that it has attained man's estate.” They noted the “somewhat similar experiment with 'narratage' 'way back in 1933,” a reference to The Power and the Glory (1933, see entry), which, like Citizen Kane told its story in segments that jumped back and forth in time, and predicted Citizen Kane would have a more definite and lasting influence than that film had on the art and technique of cinema. John O'Hara, writing in Newsweek, commented that Citizen Kane was “the best picture he ever saw” and that Welles's performance as Kane made him “the best actor in the history of acting.”
Although the film did well initially at the box office, it did not make back its cost. The film was selected as the best picture of 1941 by the New York critics and by Look magazine, and was cited as one of the ten best by a FD poll of exhibitors and the National Board of Review. Mankiewicz and Welles won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, and the film was nominated for Academy Awards in eight other categories: Best Picture; Best Director; Best Actor (Welles); Art Direction (black and white); Cinematography (black and white); Film Editing; Music; and Sound Recording. Four of the actors in the film, Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Ruth Warrick and Ray Collins, received contracts from RKO. The film was re-released on 25 May 1956, and was selected as one of the twelve best films of all time in Sep 1958 by a Brussels poll of 117 film historians from 26 countries. Subsequently, Citizen Kane was chosen as the best film in motion picture history in 1962, 1972 and 1982 by Sight & Sound polls of international critics. In Jan 1989, Turner Entertainment Co. announced it was beginning preliminary tests to colorize the film, but after reviewing the contract between RKO, Welles and Mercury Productions, Turner announced in Feb 1989 that they would discontinue the tests and would not colorize the picture because of Welles's “almost total creative control,” including the final cut, that was written into the contract. Turner subsequently re-released the film theatrically on 1 May 1991. In 2007, Citizen Kane was ranked 1st on AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies--10th Anniversary Edition list of the greatest American films, remaining in the first position it occupied on AFI's 1997 list.
Modern sources list the following additional credits: Asst art dir Hilyard Brown; Sketch artist Charles Ohmann; Sketches and graphics Al Abbott, Claude Gillingwater, Jr., Albert Pyke and Maurice Zuberano; Matte artist Mario Larrinaga; Boom operator Jimmy Thompson; Sd eff ed T. K. Wood; Sd eng for sd eff Harry Essman; and Mus ed Ralph Bekher. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 50 | https://medium.com/%40johannwilfred/citizen-kane-made-american-cinema-more-robust-e5be344419b3 | en | Citizen Kane Made American Cinema More Robust | [
"https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fill:64:64/1*dmbNkD5D-u45r44go_cf0g.png",
"https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fill:88:88/1*dmbNkD5D-u45r44go_cf0g.png",
"https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fill:144:144/1*dmbNkD5D-u45r44go_cf0g.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Johann Wilfred",
"medium.com"
] | 2023-12-19T14:19:08.106000+00:00 | Released in 1941, Citizen Kane is an old but treasured film that could teach the film enthusiast a thing or two. Mainly about the failure of a tycoon’s social aspirations in early America, it also is… | en | https://miro.medium.com/v2/5d8de952517e8160e40ef9841c781cdc14a5db313057fa3c3de41c6f5b494b19 | Medium | https://medium.com/@johannwilfred/citizen-kane-made-american-cinema-more-robust-e5be344419b3 | Released in 1941, Citizen Kane is an old but treasured film that could teach the film enthusiast a thing or two. Mainly about the failure of a tycoon’s social aspirations in early America, it also is a film that can truly be appreciated if watched more than once.
Set against the backdrop of a young America, the movie revolves around Charles Foster Kane, an aspiring newspaper publisher who leverages his fortune to create one of the biggest fictional dailies in the country. Although Charles Foster Kane is not a real person, it is commonly accepted that the film is a partial attempt at depicting the life of William Randolph Hearst, a prominent newspaper publisher who died ten years after this film was made.
The story of Citizen Kane begins innocuously enough. It is announced in various newspapers and reels that Charles Foster Kane, owner of The Inquirer, one of the biggest newspapers in America, passes away in his palatial residence, the Xanadu. This event sparks a rush among the media to find out everything about his life, mainly the meaning of his last words, Rosebud. Mr Rawlston, the head of a prominent newspaper, gives one of his reporters an assignment to interview multiple people close to Kane and to form a biography of sorts. This is what he finds.
Charles Foster Kane is a young boy whose parents want to ensure financial stability and wealth for the rest of his life. So, they hand him off to Mr Thatcher, a private banker, along with the deed to a gold mine, the Colorado Lode, which is to be managed by his prudence until Charles is old enough to inherit the fortune.
Mr Thatcher dutifully manages the wealth and grows it into a huge net worth which gets handed off to Kane when he is of age. Kane defies his guardian at every turn, refusing to accept his advice of being prudent in managing his newly acquired wealth. Eventually he reveals his plans to Mr Thatcher, asking for just one business, a budding newspaper called The Inquirer.
Over the rest of his working life, Kane carefully grows the newspaper into a large enterprise, unconcerned about making profits, instead carving out a public persona for himself. Alongside his newfound success, he also climbs the social ladder by marrying the niece of the US president.
Cracks start to appear in his professional life and personal life when distance grows between him and his wife. He also starts to lose pieces of his bond with his friend Jed Leland, a dramatic critic who writes for the Inquirer.
Kane starts to chase political aspirations, campaigning for the post of governor. But his chances of a political career are ruined when he is caught in an affair by his rival, Boss Jim Gettys. Kane divorces his wife and within two weeks marries his lover, Susan Alexander.
From this point on, Kane starts to lose focus on his newspaper which is in decline. He devotes much of his energy to making his wife, Susan Alexander, a famous opera singer. She despises him for this and eventually leaves him after years of being locked up in an unhappy marriage at the Xanadu, his primary place of residence, where he becomes a recluse in the later years of his life.
Looking for top-rated Anime Gear? Head on over to https://dropxi.com for premium merch like One Piece Hoodies, Jujitzu Kaizen Beanies, and much more.
Finally, Kane croaks off to an eternal sleep, whispering the words Rosebud in his sleep, referring to his treasured sled which he used to play with as a kid. However, Mr. Thompson, the journalist tasked with finding the meaning of Kane’s final words, is left with no explanation as to what Rosebud means. He gives his conclusion to a crowd of people around him, presumably his colleagues, saying that Rosebud was probably a missing part of a symbolic puzzle in Kane’s life.
What are the themes in Citizen Kane?
There are a lot of overlapping ideas in the film which make it a compelling watch. The first striking aspect is Kane’s dislike towards big business and corporate greed, despite becoming a newspaper tycoon himself.
When Mr Thatcher and Kane start to clash in the first part of the movie, it’s very easy to see the values at combat here. Mr Thatcher is a conservative banker who wants to protect his and Kane’s money, while his protege is looking to spend it every chance he can get.
In one of the best scenes of the movie, he defies Mr. Thatcher, saying that if he were to make a loss every year on his newspaper, he would only have to close it down in sixty years. So, we can assume from this scene that he had been contemplating a life of largesse driven by social causes instead of conservative wealth.
Even though he has big dreams, Kane repeatedly fails to achieve his aspirations in the movie. He fails in his political career and his relationships as well. But on the surface, he is still a successful publisher who holds big parties and rallies the public, still defying the idea of the conservative businessmen, i.e. Mr Thatcher.
We also experience the trajectory of a life, which inexplicably comes with loss. Kane sacrifices relationships for his own selfish needs, something he does out of a misplaced sense of love, either for his newspaper or his second wife, or for his self-image. This is why he is frequently criticized by people as being someone who can only love someone on his terms, which is perhaps the strongest theme in the movie, selfish love.
What’s clear by the end of the movie is that Kane loves nobody but himself, only giving affection and support out of a need to fulfill his aspirations, in some cases mixing them with the dreams of other people. We see this the most when he tries to make his second wife a famous opera singer, forcing her even though she no longer wants to pursue her former dreams.
Finally, the concept of Rosebud is something we see throughout the film. While Mr Thompson is unable to figure out what Rosebud meant, he is close in his guess, assuming that it was something missing from the prominent tycoon’s life. It also shows us that despite Mr Kane’s many ambitions in his life, his unconscious desires, at a base level, were simpler than most people would believe. This is another theme in the movie which is a loss of childhood.
Rosebud is a reference to the childhood he never had, a desire he held on to from the very beginning of his road to riches. Kane was separated from a happy upbringing and forced to think about his career from a young age.
This could have been the reason he chose to turn rebellious, marking another theme in the movie which is rebellion. Maybe he despised his wealth when he considered what he lost in terms of happy memories and because of that, decided to run his massive wealth into the ground by running a newspaper at a high cost.
Cinematography And Direction
Citizen Kane was regarded as an innovative piece of auteur-powered filmmaking, revered for its unique take on cinematography.
Gregg Toland was in charge of cinematography and used many innovative techniques to drive the story of Citizen Kane forward, namely, deep focus, low angles, and innovative lighting techniques. Deep focus allowed certain scenes to have a strong clarity while low angles made actors look large and imposing on the camera because of the angle at which the camera was placed. The picture below is a great example of a low-angle shot.
Finally, lighting techniques helped to lend a sense of mystique, especially to Kane. While all of these techniques are now common in the film industry, they were revolutionary at the time as they hadn’t been done before.
Another element that was considered unique at the time was the nonlinear style of storytelling. The film starts with a newsreel describing the life of Charles Foster Kane and the event of his death, and then immediately takes us to his childhood which is the chronological beginning of the movie.
The Final Take
The creative control Orson Welles had was unparalleled. He was the main actor, director, and writer of the film, making his film debut a classic piece of Auteur cinema. Although Orson Welles would go on to develop many films in the future, none stuck in the way that Citizen Kane did. The dialogue, story, cinematography, and acting make the film stand out as one of the best films in Hollywood.
The 1941 Academy Awards gave Best Picture to How Green Was My Valley, a romance film directed by John Ford. But Citizen Kane still impressed audiences at the time and is still revered and discussed today among film critics.
Looking for top-rated Anime Gear? Head on over to https://dropxi.com for premium merch like One Piece Hoodies, Jujitzu Kaizen Beanies, and much more.
References | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 44 | https://rpubs.com/naren_10/DC_GroupAssignment_2 | en | DC Group Assignment 2 | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2016-10-23T18:06:20+00:00 | null | |||||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 11 | https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/27624 | en | Catalog | [
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/afi_Logo.png",
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/afi_Logo.png",
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/afi_Logo.png",
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/Icon/search.png",
"https://catalog.afi.com/Content/Images/Icon/white_search.png",
"https://catalog.af... | [] | [] | [
"Citizen Kane",
"Orson Welles",
"Edward Donahue",
"Orson Welles",
"Richard Baer",
"William Alland",
"Molly Herman",
"Sid Rogell",
"Herman J. Mankiewicz",
"Orson Welles",
"John Houseman",
"Roger Denny",
"Mollie Kent",
"Joseph Cotten",
"Dorothy Comingore",
"Agnes Moorehead",
"Ruth Warr... | null | [] | null | Seventy-year-old newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane dies in his palatial Florida home, Xanadu, after uttering the single word “Rosebud.” While watching a newsreel summarizing the years during which Kane built a dying newspaper into a major empire, married and divorced twice, ran unsuccessfully for governor and saw the collapse of his newspaper empire during the Depression, an editor decides they have not captured the essence of the controversial newspaperman and assigns reporter Jerry Thompson to discover the meaning of Kane's last word.<BR>
Thompson first approaches Kane's second wife, singer Susan Alexander, in the Atlantic City nightclub where she now performs. After the drunken Susan orders Thompson to leave, the accommodating bartender reports her claim that she had never heard of Rosebud. Next, Thompson reads the unpublished memoirs of Wall Street financier Walter Parks Thatcher, Kane's guardian and trustee of the mining fortune left | en | /favicon.ico | https://catalog.afi.com/Catalog/moviedetails/27624 | This film's end credits begin with the statement, “Most of the principal actors in Citizen Kane are new to motion pictures. The Mercury Theatre is proud to introduce them.” Organized by Orson Welles and John Houseman in Nov 1937, The Mercury Theatre won critical acclaim for its productions, including Julius Caesar, The Shoemaker's Holiday, Heartbreak House and Danton's Death. However, it was The War of the Worlds, Welles's convincing radio portrayal of an invasion by Martians, broadcast on Halloween night, 1938, that brought him instant celebrity. According to a 1940 SEP series on Welles, Hollywood studios had offered the director a contract for $300 a week as early as 1936. Published accounts of Hollywood's interest did not appear until Jul 1939, when news items and RKO publicity announced that Welles, at age twenty-four and with no professional film experience, had signed a carte-blanche contract with RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. to produce, write, direct and act in one film per year. Welles was to be paid $150,000 per film in addition to a percentage of the gross, but more important to him was the stipulation that no one, not even RKO's president or board of directors, could interfere with him or see his work until it was completed. (Life reported that when RKO executives came on the set of Citizen Kane unannounced, Welles told his company to start a baseball game and walked off.) According to the SEP series, Welles once described the RKO studio as “the greatest railroad train a boy ever had.” In her LAEx column, Louella Parsons observed that Welles “rode into Hollyood [sic] with a contract that never has been equaled in the entire history of motion pictures” and noted that he signed with RKO after Warner Bros. and M-G-M “refused to give him all the privileges that he asked.” The Hollywood community greeted Welles with hostility. Gossip columnists repeatedly referred to him as “Little Orson Annie” and “Arson” Welles, and called attention to his beard, which he grew for stage roles and kept for his planned first film role.
Welles brought with him to Hollywood a number of staff members from the Mercury Theatre and established Mercury Productions, Inc. in partnership with Jack Moss. Early in Aug 1939, according to HR, Welles began working with John Houseman and Herbert Drake on a script for his first film, an adaptation of the Joseph Conrad novel Heart of Darkness. Welles planned to play both of the major roles, Kurtz and Marlow, and to use a subjective camera. SEP reported that he was also to be the chief scenic artist and propman. Heart of Darkness was to feature many actors from the Mercury Theatre and Welles's radio company, the Mercury Theatre of the Air, including Everett Sloane, Ray Collins, Gus Schilling, Edgar Barrier and Erskine Sanford. Austrian actress Dita Parlo was wanted for the female lead. Production was set to begin on 1 Nov 1939, but according to DV, RKO pushed back the date to give the construction department more time to build the unusual sets. Fourteen actors were on salary in Nov 1939, but in Dec 1939, pre-production was halted. RKO announced that Welles would first make The Smiler with a Knife, variously called a comedy-mystery-drama and a thriller and based on a novel by Nicholas Blake, which the studio had recently purchased and for which Welles was writing the screenplay. The lead was to be a woman, and Welles was to play a supporting role. In a later interview, Welles stated that the studio would not let him cast Lucille Ball in the lead, so the project was shelved. According to RKO publicity, before Welles began work on Citizen Kane, he “indulged himself in the most concentrated course in movie making ever attempted, with the result that he has a working knowledge of every studio department.”
The initial rough draft script of Citizen Kane is dated 16 Apr 1940 and entitled “American.” This draft, in which “Xanadu” was called the “Alhambra,” includes many scenes similar to incidents in the life of William Randolph Hearst, which were subsequently dropped. Modern sources dispute whether Welles or his co-writer, Herman J. Mankiewicz, should be given credit for the various drafts. Some sources claim that Welles tried to keep Mankiewicz's name off the screen credits, while others argue that while Mankiewicz's contract stipulated that he would not necessarily get an onscreen credit, Welles, in correspondence with his attorney, stated that he wanted Mankiewicz to get credit. In a deposition taken for a 1949 lawsuit, Welles stated that Mankiewicz wrote the dialogue for the first two drafts, and that he (Welles) worked on the third draft and “participated all along in conversations concerning the structure of the scenes.” RKO story files at UCLA Arts--Special Collections Library contain extensive notes dated 30 Apr 1940 by Welles concerning desired changes to the 16 Apr 1940 draft. Subsequently, a number of drafts and continuities were written, concluding with the third revised final script, dated 16 Jul 1940. According to modern sources, Mankiewicz claimed to the Screen Writers' Guild that he should be given sole writing credit. According to the RKO Billing Memorandum file for the film at UCLA, on 11 Jan 1941, Mankiewicz signed a statement giving his consent for advertising to omit a screenplay credit. On 18 Jan 1941, Dore Schary of the Screen Writers' Guild wrote to Mercury Productions stating that the proposed credit “screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles” seemed to be in violation of a clause in the Producer-Screen Writers' Guild Agreement which stated that “No production executives will be entitled to share in the screen play authorship screen credit unless he does the screen play writing entirely without the collaboration of any other writer.” Subsequently, on 22 Jan 1941, Welles and Mankiewicz signed a joint statement that “having carefully considered their intentions relative to the contract dated 19 Jun 1940, and having carefully considered the contribution of each of them in the writing of the original screen story for Citizen Kane," they agreed to the screen credits as they appear on the film. On 27 Jan 1941, the Screen Writers' Guild met and decided that the Guild had no jurisdiction in the matter because of the particular contract Mankiewicz had signed. A memo in the RKO files, dated 5 Jun 1941, states that both Mankiewicz and Welles worked 111 days on the screenplay: 7 Dec--23 Dec 1939; 19 Feb--11 May 1940; and 18 Jun--27 Jul 1940. The memo also indicates that Houseman worked 87 days: 21 Feb--27 Apr 1940; and 29 Apr--1 Jun 1940.
In an undated statement included in the RKO files at UCLA, Welles described his intent in making the film: “I wished to make a motion picture which was not a narrative of action so much as an examination of character. For this, I desired a man of many sides and many aspects. It was my idea to show that six or more people could have as many widely divergent opinions concerning the nature of a single personality.” After discussing how he came to choose a newspaper publisher as his main character, Welles continued, “There have been many motion pictures and novels rigorously obeying the formula of the 'success story.' I wished to do something quite different. I wished to make a picture which might be called a 'failure story.'“ Welles noted that his character “had never made what is known as 'transference' from his mother. Hence his failure with his wives.” Welles concluded, “The protagonist of my 'failure story' must retreat from a democracy which his money fails to buy and his power fails to control.--There are two retreats possible: death and the womb. The house was the womb.” In an article published in the New York publication Friday during the controversy that held up the film's release, Welles further explained his intent: “Kane, we are told, loved only his mother--only his newspaper--only his second wife--only himself. Maybe he loved all of these, or none. It is for the audience to judge....He is never judged with the objectivity of an author, and the point of the picture is not so much the solution of the problem as its presentation.”
In an interview, Welles stated that Gregg Toland, who won the Academy Award in 1940 for his work on Wuthering Heights, asked to work with him. Toland, in a Popular Photography article, stated that with the backing of Welles, who had a reputation for experimentation in the theater, he “was able to test and prove several ideas generally accepted as being radical in Hollywood circles.” In an article in AmCin, Toland explained the rationale and technique of the “radical departures from conventional practice” that he and Welles devised for Citizen Kane. They felt “that if it was possible, the picture should be brought to the screen in such a way that the audience would feel it was looking at reality, rather than merely at a movie.” They rejected direct cuts, wherever possible, favoring instead “to plan action so that the camera could pan or dolly from one angle to another” or to pre-plan “our angles and compositions so that action which ordinarily would be shown in direct cuts would be shown in a single, longer scene--often one in which important action might take place simultaneously in widely separated points in extreme foreground and background.”
Because of the film's huge, deep sets, twin-arc broadsides, which were developed for Technicolor film, were used for lighting. With increased illumination, use of the new super speed emulsion Super XX, as well as wide-angle lenses coated with the recently developed Vard “Opticoat” non-glare coating, and stopping down, became possible. Toland relates, “we photographed nearly all of our interior scenes at apertures not greater than f:8--and often smaller.” At that time, most Hollywood films were shot with apertures between f:2.3 and f:3.2. Use of the 24mm lens was virtually unheard of, according to a 1947 NYT article, because of “the cruelty with which it exposes facial flaws in actors and actresses. Orson Welles employed it extensively in his notable Citizen Kane in 1940, but since then it has been largely relegated to the documentary field.” Toland, through experimentation, was able to get sharp focus in even the larger sets, which extended the length of two stages at the RKO-Pathé studio, a distance of 200 feet. For purposes of realism, Welles and Toland ordered that ceilings be built for the majority of their sets and planned “unusually low camera-setups, so that we could shoot upward and take advantage of the more realistic effects of those ceilings.” Another advantage of the ceilings, which were made of acoustically pourous muslin, was that microphones could be placed above them to avoid problems with shadows. In a Theatre Arts article, Toland noted that they spent four days perfecting the scene in which Mrs. Kane signs Thatcher's papers while young Charles plays with his sled in the snow.
Citizen Kane was the first film to be printed on a newly developed fine grain positive, which, according to HR, “improves the fidelity of both sound recording and re-recording through removal of fine particles of silver nitrate that formerly dotted all positive prints.” Toland insisted on using the new fine grain release positive, and according to RKO memos, RKO president George J. Schaefer agreed to change the lab for the film to Consolidated from De Luxe, which could not do the job because the new stock required about twenty times the normal intensity of printing lighting. In recognition of Toland's contributions to the picture, Welles signed a waiver with the Screen Directors' Guild in Feb 1941, authorizing his own credit card to include Toland's photography credit.
Photographic makeup and wardrobe tests for the production, which was then called “Orson Welles #3,” began on 16 Apr 1940, with Russell Metty as cameraman. Metty also shot tests on 26 Apr and 1 May, showing Welles at varying ages. According to LAT, the film was announced in May at RKO's annual convention in New York and at that time was called John Citizen, U.S.A. This title is not included in an RKO list of working titles, however. Toland is first credited for tests shot on 14 Jun 1940. On 19 Jun 1940, a test was shot with Welles, Joseph Cotten and Evelyn Meyers, in the role of “Susan.” Production records for 24 Jun 1940 indicate that Ruth Warrick also tested for the role of “Susan”; because no other source, contemporary or modern, including Warrick's autobiography, mentions that she was under consideration for the role, this may have been an erroneous entry. Dorothy Comingore, then called Linda Winters, the name she used in a number of films in the 1930s, made her first test on 1 Jul 1940 with Welles, William Alland and Terry Belmont , who was not in the final film.
On 29 Jun 1940, the projection room scene in which “News on the March” is shown, was shot. It is listed in the RKO production records as a test, as were scenes shot on the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 22th, 23rd, 24th and 25th of Jul 1940. Scenes shot during this period that were kept in the final film include Thompson's first meeting with Susan; Kane's discovery of Susan's suicide attempt; Kane slapping Susan in the tent in the Everglades; Kane speaking from a flag-draped platform; Kane being interviewed on the boat deck; Susan confronting Kane in their Chicago hotel room; Susan's singing lesson with Signor Matiste; Kane shaking hands with Chamberlain; and Kane standing with Hitler and Goering. In later interviews, Welles explained that he shot these scenes under the guise of tests, so that once begun, the RKO front office, with whom he had been having difficulties, would find it hard to stop the film.
Welles entertained the press at a party on 1 Aug 1940 with footage from the White House wedding party scene. The press speculated on the film's subject matter, which Welles purposely kept secret. Although NYT reported the official version--that the film “covers the last sixty years of the American scene” and that Welles's role was that of a “robber baron industrialist”--HR, on 29 Jul 1940, stated, “despite denials from the Orson Welles contingent, insiders insist Little Orson Annie's flicker is based on the life of a well-known publisher. Treatment of the personality is sympathetic throughout.”
Principal shooting continued until 23 Oct 1940, with two halts due to illnesses of Toland and Welles. On 10 Aug 1940, during the scene in which Kane yells at Boss Jim Gettys on the steps of Susan's second apartment, Welles fell about ten feet and suffered a chipped ankle. For two weeks, he shot around himself and directed from a wheelchair. On days when Welles filmed scenes requiring a lot of makeup, he would report to work before dawn and hold conferences as makeup artist Maurice Seiderman worked on his face. On 30 Aug, the company worked through the night on a rewritten scene depicting Leland confronting Kane after Kane loses the election. Welles reworked scenes as he shot and often gave extras lines to speak that were not in the script. Considerable time was spent after 30 Oct 1940 with inserts, added scenes, special effects, retakes and a trailer. Beginning 20 Nov, Harry Wild took over as cameraman, shooting the trailer and some scenes in the newsreel, including the Union Square speaker and the Spanish generals with Kane. The final shot, of Alland in front of the hospital before his interview with Leland, was taken on 4 Jan 1941 by cameraman Russ Cully, who also photographed one day in Dec 1940.
On 15 Jul 1940, Joseph I. Breen, director of the Production Code Administration, pointed out in a letter to RKO that one scene in the script was in violation of the Code because of its setting in a brothel. Despite the warning, Welles filmed the scene, which occurs after the party at The Inquirer office celebrating the acquisition of The Chronicle staff. The scene includes actresses Joan Blair and Frances Neal, playing “Georgie,” the madam, and “Ethel,” a prostitute whom Georgie introduces to Leland, respectively. This scene was not in the final film. Joan Blair does appear as one of the dancers in the party scene, however. Another scene was cut: in The Inquirer's composing room, during the night before Kane's first paper is to hit the streets, editor Carter resigns, and Kane commands the composing room foreman Smathers to remake the pages five minutes before they are to go to press. When Smathers objects, Kane shoves the forms of type onto the floor and tells him that after proofs are pulled, he will check the pages again and “then, if I can't find any way to improve them again--I suppose we'll have to go to press.” Smathers was played by Benny Rubin, who was originally listed in the credit titles. On 21 Jan 1941, after his scene was cut, a memo was sent from Richard Baer (Welles's assistant, who, under the name Richard Barr, later became a well-known theatrical producer and director) to Douglas Travers stating Rubin's credit must be eliminated. According to production reports, Ed Hemmer was also in the cut scene.
Edgar Barrier was originally considered for the roles of Rawlston and Raymond. Glenn Turnbull and Carl Thomas, hired as a song-and-dance team for The Inquirer party sequence, participated in rehearsals but not in filming. Albert Frazier is listed in production files as a man in a gorilla suit for Xanadu zoo scenes, but no gorilla character appears in the completed picture. Joe Recht's voice was used in re-recording. Pat O'Malley's listing in the Dec 1940 Players Directory Bulletin includes Citizen Kane in his credits, but no confirming evidence concerning his participation has been located. Earl Seaman was scheduled to play a stagehand, but was not listed in the production reports.
The scene in which cars drive along a beach on the way to the Everglades picnic was actually shot at Point Mugu, CA, and some shots of the exterior of Xanadu in the “News on the March” sequence were taken at Balboa Park in San Diego, and at Busch Gardens in Florida, according to RKO Production Records. Stock footage for the film was obtained from Pathé News, including segments entitled “Red Party, Strikes, Etc.,” “Graveyard of Ships,” “Fang and Claw” and “White Wings,” and from General Film Library, Inc., including segments entitled “San Francisco Earthquake” and “Spanish American War.” Notes dated 18 Apr 1940 on suggested shots to be included in the newsreel sequence state that the Congressional Investigating Committee scene would be a reproduction of an existing J. P. Morgan newsreel.
Citizen Kane marked the screen debut of many actors, including Cotten, Warrick, Agnes Moorehead, Ray Collins, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane and Paul Stewart, all of whom had worked with Welles in theater productions or radio broadcasts. According to RKO records, Sloane was paid $2,400 “in consideration for shaving his head.” Citizen Kane was also the first film for composer Bernard Herrmann, who had worked with Welles on the radio. Although Van Nest Polglase got screen credit as art director, it was the practice at RKO for Polglase, head of the department, to get credit on all RKO films, no matter what his contribution. According to Welles, Perry Ferguson designed all the sets, which numbered over 110. Welles, in trade paper ads the day of the film's Hollywood premiere, gave thanks “to everybody who gets screen credit for Citizen Kane and thanks to those who don't: to all the actors, the crew, the office, the musicians, everybody, and particularly to Maurice Seiderman, the best makeup man in the world.” According to a memo dated 5 Nov 1940, Welles wanted to give screen credit to Seiderman, who later worked with him on Touch of Evil. RKO officials were reluctant to give screen credit for makeup and perhaps establish a precedent, and pointed out that giving credit to Seiderman, an apprentice, “might jeopardize his personal situation with the Union,” according to a 23 Nov 1940 memo. Welles continued to insist that Seiderman's name be included in the credits, until 13 Jan 1941, when a memo issued by Welles through Richard Baer dictated that makeup credits be eliminated. Welles also decided to remove credit for set decorations. Although Hugh McDowell was the soundman from 22 Jul through 3 Sep, he also did not receive screen credit.
In an article written for NYT in May 1941, Herrmann revealed that Welles allowed him twelve weeks to write the score, a much longer time than was usually alloted to the composer. Herrmann was thus able to “work out a general artistic plan” and “to do my own orchestration and conducting.” Instead of writing the music after the film was completely shot, the practice with most Hollywood films, Herrmann was able to work as the film progressed, allowing for many sequences to be “tailored to match the music,” particularly the montages, for which he wrote complete musical numbers. Herrmann composed two main motifs: “One--a simple four-note figure in the brass--is that of Kane's power....The second motif is that of Rosebud. Heard as a solo on the vibraphone, it first appears during the death scene at the very beginning of the picture. It is heard again and again throughout the film under various guises, and if followed closely, is a clue to the ultimate identity of Rosebud itself.” Herrmann commented that he used “radio scoring,” musical cues lasting only a few seconds, a great deal, that “most of the cues were orchestrated for unorthodox instrumental combinations” and that sound effects were blended with music to intensify scenes. The music included in the “News on the March” segment, Herrmann noted, was taken from the RKO files.
Work was completed by 18 Jan 1941, and a complete print was ready for screening. The film, as of 21 Jan, was 11,041 feet, or approximately 123 minutes, according to a report from editor Robert Wise. Subsequently, the film was cut to 10,734 feet, or 119 minutes. According to an RKO cost sheet dated 28 Mar 1942, the final cost of the film was $839,727. Before production, the budget was estimated at $723,800. The film was scheduled to have its premiere on 14 Feb 1941 at Radio City Music Hall, but complications set in after a screening given on 9 Jan 1941 for Louella Parsons, motion picture editor of the Hearst papers. According to DV, Parsons insisted on a screening after an article about the film appeared in Friday, in which Welles ridiculed her for previously praising him and stated, “Wait until the woman finds out that the picture is about her boss.” Friday subsequently allowed Welles space to deny that he ever spoke the quote, but meanwhile, Hearst editors were ordered to keep publicity, advertisements and reviews of all RKO films out of their newspapers. Parsons threatened RKO president George J. Schaefer that Hearst would bring a great deal of pressure on the motion picture industry if the film were released. According to NYT, Louis B. Mayer of M-G-M and Harry M. Warner of Warner Bros. were then contacted, and Hearst representatives began investigating the “alien” situation in Hollywood, “something about which the industry is most sensitive.” Adela Rogers St. John , a Hearst columnist, began gathering information for a story on Welles's romantic adventures, and a Congressional investigation of Hollywood was hinted at by Senator Burton K. Wheeler.
In a statement printed in NYT in Jan 1941, Welles contended that the film “is not based upon the life of Mr. Hearst or anyone else. On the other hand, had Mr. Hearst and similar financial barons not lived during the period we discuss, Citizen Kane could not have been made.” In the previously quoted statement on the intent of the film, found in the RKO story files at UCLA, Welles noted that in order to show the many divergent opinions concerning one individual, he decided that his character should be “an extremely public man.” He considered using a fictitious president, but “deciding against this, I could find no other position in public life beside that of a newspaper publisher in which a man of enormous wealth exercises what might be called real power in a democracy....The history of the newspaper business obviously demanded that Kane be what is generally referred to as a yellow journalist.” Welles wrote that once he chose his subject, “it was impossible for me to ignore American history....My picture could not begin the career of such a man in 1890 and take it to 1940 without presenting the man with the same problems which presented themselves to his equivalents in real life.”
In the foreword to a memoir by Marion Davies, Hearst's mistress, Welles notes that everything in Citizen Kane was invented except for the telegram Kane orders to be sent to his reporter in Cuba (“You provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war”), which was based on the well-known wire Hearst sent to illustrator Frederick Remington (“You make the pictures, I'll make the war”) and Kane's “crazy art collection.” While acknowledging parallels, Welles points out that Hearst was born rich and was the “pampered son of an adoring mother,” whereas Kane was born poor and reared by a bank. Welles states, “It was a real man who built an opera house for the soprano of his choice, and much in the movie was borrowed from that story, but the man was not Hearst.” Others have speculated that Kane is not so much a portrayal of Hearst as a composite of a number of powerful men of the time, including Samuel Insull, Joseph Pulitzer, Charles A. Dana, Joseph Medill Patterson, James Gordon Bennett II, Frank A. Munsey, Harold Fowler McCormick and Colonel Robert McCormick. Indeed, on 8 Nov 1940, photographs of a number of famous publishers including Hearst, Pulitzer, McCormick, Patterson, Lord Northcliffe, Lord Beaverbrook, Bonfils and Sommes were ordered for the film to be reproduced for the “News on the March” sequence. Welles contended that Susan Alexander “bears no resemblance at all” to Marion Davies, whom he calls “one of the most delightfully accomplished comediennes in the whole history of the screen.”
Some modern sources claim that Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies' genitalia was “Rosebud” and that Hearst threatened to expose details of the sexual lives of personages in Hollywood if the film were released. According to HR, Hearst saw the film's script in Sep 1940 and “shot it back without a word.” As Kane's dying word “Rosebud” was in the script at that time, it is unclear why, if the story about “Rosebud” was true, he took no action until the film was completed. (In Mar 1941, in Welles's New York production of Native Son, a child's sled bearing the name “Rosebud” was used as a prop, according to HR.)
According to an 8 Mar 1941 memo, Schaefer wanted a clearance title attached to the film. Two possible clearance titles suggested on 3 Apr 1941 were: “This is not the story of any man, be he living or dead. Kane, and all other characters involved in this picture are wholly imaginary” and “Citizen Kane is not the story of the life of any man. It is the story of the forces that move in the lives of many great men, as seen through the eyes of lesser men.” According to a modern source, Welles objected and wrote his own clearance title, which was added to the film and later deleted. It read, “Citizen Kane is an examination of the personal character of a public man, a portrait according to the testimony of the intimates of his life. These, and Kane himself, are wholly fictitious.”
According to DV, the Hearst ban on mentioning or advertising RKO product ended on 30 Jan 1941 for all RKO films except Citizen Kane. Hearst's forces tried a number of tactics to stop its release, including, according to DV, stirring up the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars and other patriotic groups; sending photographers to get “personal” pictures of Welles while he was at Palm Springs; and persistently inquiring at the draft board as to the reason Welles was not drafted. Welles, in a later interview, stated that he was warned one evening by a policeman not to return to his hotel room because an underaged, undressed girl and photographers had been sent there as a setup, a situation that could have resulted in a jail sentence. In Apr 1941, after a radio broadcast of His Honor, the Mayor, written and narrated by Welles, the Hearst papers launched an attack on “The Free Company” series, of which the broadcast was a part, and on Welles himself, whom they labeled Communistic and un-American. Welles replied in a statement to newspapers that the attack was unfounded and based solely on Hearst's displeasure with Citizen Kane.
In Feb 1941, DV reported that a rift had occurred in RKO's board regarding whether the film should be released, and that Welles, who had 25% interest in the film, privately threatened to take legal steps if the release was delayed. After Radio City Music Hall declined to premiere the film, HR reported a rumor that Henry Luce, publisher of Time, offered one million dollars for the negative, intending to release it. Modern sources cite rumors that Louis B. Mayer, worried about Hearst's threats against the industry, tried to buy the negative from RKO in order to destroy it. By Mar 1941, after a number of special screenings, HR reported that “the guess of 98 percent of those who have seen the picture is that it will never be released--can't be released other than under a threat of suits that Mr. W. R. Hearst will level against any theatre showing the film.” On 11 Mar, Welles threatened to sue RKO for breach of contract and to attempt to obtain a court order to guarantee the picture's release if he did not receive proof within twenty-four hours that RKO would give the film an early release. Welles himself offered to buy the film, but RKO, after a preview to the trade press in Hollywood and New York on 9 Apr, scheduled the world premiere at the Palace Theatre in New York on 1 May. Subsequently, the film had its Hollywood premiere at the El Capitan on 8 May 1941.
Critics exuberantly praised the film. HR called it “a great motion picture.” Bosley Crowther of NYT wrote, “Citizen Kane is far and away the most surprising and cinematically exciting motion picture to be seen here in many a moon. As a matter of fact, it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood.” FD stated, “In Citizen Kane, the cinema assures anew that its romper days are over and that it has attained man's estate.” They noted the “somewhat similar experiment with 'narratage' 'way back in 1933,” a reference to The Power and the Glory (1933, see entry), which, like Citizen Kane told its story in segments that jumped back and forth in time, and predicted Citizen Kane would have a more definite and lasting influence than that film had on the art and technique of cinema. John O'Hara, writing in Newsweek, commented that Citizen Kane was “the best picture he ever saw” and that Welles's performance as Kane made him “the best actor in the history of acting.”
Although the film did well initially at the box office, it did not make back its cost. The film was selected as the best picture of 1941 by the New York critics and by Look magazine, and was cited as one of the ten best by a FD poll of exhibitors and the National Board of Review. Mankiewicz and Welles won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, and the film was nominated for Academy Awards in eight other categories: Best Picture; Best Director; Best Actor (Welles); Art Direction (black and white); Cinematography (black and white); Film Editing; Music; and Sound Recording. Four of the actors in the film, Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Ruth Warrick and Ray Collins, received contracts from RKO. The film was re-released on 25 May 1956, and was selected as one of the twelve best films of all time in Sep 1958 by a Brussels poll of 117 film historians from 26 countries. Subsequently, Citizen Kane was chosen as the best film in motion picture history in 1962, 1972 and 1982 by Sight & Sound polls of international critics. In Jan 1989, Turner Entertainment Co. announced it was beginning preliminary tests to colorize the film, but after reviewing the contract between RKO, Welles and Mercury Productions, Turner announced in Feb 1989 that they would discontinue the tests and would not colorize the picture because of Welles's “almost total creative control,” including the final cut, that was written into the contract. Turner subsequently re-released the film theatrically on 1 May 1991. In 2007, Citizen Kane was ranked 1st on AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies--10th Anniversary Edition list of the greatest American films, remaining in the first position it occupied on AFI's 1997 list.
Modern sources list the following additional credits: Asst art dir Hilyard Brown; Sketch artist Charles Ohmann; Sketches and graphics Al Abbott, Claude Gillingwater, Jr., Albert Pyke and Maurice Zuberano; Matte artist Mario Larrinaga; Boom operator Jimmy Thompson; Sd eff ed T. K. Wood; Sd eng for sd eff Harry Essman; and Mus ed Ralph Bekher. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 13 | https://secondscritiques.home.blog/2019/01/20/citizen-kane-master-of-shot-composition/ | en | Citizen Kane: Master of Shot Composition | [
"https://secondscritiques.home.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/poster-1.png",
"https://secondscritiques.home.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/wam.png",
"https://secondscritiques.home.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/boom.png",
"https://secondscritiques.home.blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/reeeeeeeee.png",
"ht... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Ben Squared"
] | 2019-01-20T00:00:00 | Director: Orson Welles Screenplay: Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles Release Date: 1941 Budget: $839,727 What better place to start a movie review website than the one and only Citizen Kane, proclaimed by many to be a masterpiece and even the greatest movie ever made. There have been many reviews on Citizen Kane already, so instead of… | en | Second's Critiques | https://secondscritiques.home.blog/2019/01/20/citizen-kane-master-of-shot-composition/ | Director: Orson Welles
Screenplay: Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles
Release Date: 1941
Budget: $839,727
What better place to start a movie review website than the one and only Citizen Kane, proclaimed by many to be a masterpiece and even the greatest movie ever made. There have been many reviews on Citizen Kane already, so instead of doing a normal review, I will be talking about the composition.
With this perspective in mind as you begin to watch Citizen Kane, you may notice that there is rarely ever any space in the frame that goes wasted and unused. This unutilized space is sometimes called “Dead Space.” A few obvious examples of this are shots like these:
Both shots clearly display a lack of dead space and are very intriguing to look at. In the first shot, the double mirror creates an eye-catching spectacle. In the second shot, nearly every surface has a specific pattern, and there are no blank white walls. In addition, in both shots, there is exceptional lighting, reflecting the mood of the scene.
The next important thing to note and pay attention to is that often times the way a scene is shot displays what a character is thinking and feeling. In the second shot, you see that Citizen Kane is standing extremely far from the camera and is completely covered in shadows. This sharply contrasts Kane’s normally open and central position in the shot (as depicted in the next image displayed). Take a moment and guess what Kane is feeling. In that scene, Kane’s wife has just left him. Even without the full context, given his character, it would be fairly easy to recognize that Kane is feeling sad and alone.
In another shot, the movie Citizen Kane utilizes framing and cinematography to convey social status and power:
Notice that the camera viewing Kane is positioned looking up at himself and that all the other characters on the screen seem to fade into the background.
Overall, the cinematography, framing, and lighting of Citizen Kane makes the viewing experience very enjoyable and certainly warrants a re-watch if you didn’t notice these things before. This movie is an excellent example of the early successes of film-making, and it paved the way for the many movies made after its time.
That’s it for this review. If you enjoyed, leave a comment telling me so. If you notice a mistake or something you disagree with, please let me know, and in case I don’t see you later, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 0 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | en | Citizen Kane | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/1... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2001-08-31T17:53:47+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | 1941 drama film by Orson Welles
For the hip hop duo, see Citizen Kane (band).
Citizen KaneDirected byOrson WellesScreenplay by
Herman J. Mankiewicz
Orson Welles
Produced byOrson WellesStarringCinematographyGregg TolandEdited byRobert WiseMusic byBernard Herrmann
Production
companies
Distributed byRKO Radio Pictures
Release dates
Running time
119 minutes[1]CountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishBudget$839,727[2]Box office$1.8 million (re-release)[3][4]
Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama film directed by, produced by, and starring Orson Welles. Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz wrote the screenplay. The picture was Welles's first feature film.
Citizen Kane is frequently cited as the greatest film ever made.[5] For 40 years (5 decennial polls: 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002), it stood at number 1 in the British Film Institute's Sight & Sound decennial poll of critics,[6] and it topped the American Film Institute's 100 Years ... 100 Movies list in 1998, as well as its 2007 update. The film was nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories and it won for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) by Mankiewicz and Welles. Citizen Kane is praised for Gregg Toland's cinematography, Robert Wise's editing, Bernard Herrmann's music, and its narrative structure, all of which have been considered innovative and precedent-setting.
The quasi-biographical film examines the life and legacy of Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles, a composite character based on American media barons William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, Chicago tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick, as well as aspects of the screenwriters' own lives. Upon its release, Hearst prohibited any mention of the film in his newspapers.[7]
After the Broadway success of Welles's Mercury Theatre and the controversial 1938 radio broadcast "The War of the Worlds" on The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was courted by Hollywood. He signed a contract with RKO Pictures in 1939. Although it was unusual for an untried director, he was given freedom to develop his own story, to use his own cast and crew, and to have final cut privilege. Following two abortive attempts to get a project off the ground, he wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane, collaborating with Herman J. Mankiewicz. Principal photography took place in 1940, the same year its innovative trailer was shown, and the film was released in 1941.
Although it was a critical success, Citizen Kane failed to recoup its costs at the box office. The film faded from view after its release, but it returned to public attention when it was praised by French critics such as André Bazin and re-released in 1956. In 1958, the film was voted number 9 on the prestigious Brussels 12 list at the 1958 World Expo. The Library of Congress selected Citizen Kane as an inductee of the 1989 inaugural group of 25 films for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[8][9][10] Roger Ebert wrote of it: "Its surface is as much fun as any movie ever made. Its depths surpass understanding. I have analyzed it a shot at a time with more than 30 groups, and together we have seen, I believe, pretty much everything that is there on the screen. The more clearly I can see its physical manifestation, the more I am stirred by its mystery."[11]
Plot
[edit]
In a mansion called Xanadu, part of a vast palatial estate in Florida, the elderly Charles Foster Kane is on his deathbed. Holding a snow globe, he utters his last word, "Rosebud", and dies. A newsreel obituary tells the life story of Kane, an enormously wealthy newspaper publisher and industry magnate. Kane's death becomes sensational news around the world, and the newsreel's producer tasks reporter Jerry Thompson with discovering the meaning of "Rosebud".
Thompson sets out to interview Kane's friends and associates. He tries to approach Kane's second wife, Susan Alexander Kane, now an alcoholic who runs her nightclub, but she refuses to talk to him. Thompson goes to the private archive of the late banker Walter Parks Thatcher. Through Thatcher's written memoirs, Thompson learns about Kane's rise from a Colorado boarding house and the decline of his fortune.
In 1871, gold was discovered through a mining deed belonging to Kane's mother, Mary Kane. She hired Thatcher to establish a trust that would provide for Kane's education and assume guardianship of him. While the parents and Thatcher discussed arrangements inside the boarding house, the young Kane played happily with a sled in the snow outside. When Kane's parents introduced him to Thatcher, the boy struck Thatcher with his sled and attempted to run away.
By the time Kane gained control of his trust at the age of 25, the mine's productivity and Thatcher's prudent investing had made Kane one of the richest men in the world. Kane took control of the New York Inquirer newspaper and embarked on a career of yellow journalism, publishing scandalous articles that attacked Thatcher's (and his own) business interests. Kane sold his newspaper empire to Thatcher after the 1929 stock market crash left him short of cash.
Thompson interviews Kane's personal business manager, Mr. Bernstein. Bernstein recalls that Kane hired the best journalists available to build the Inquirer's circulation. Kane rose to power by successfully manipulating public opinion regarding the Spanish–American War and marrying Emily Norton, the niece of the President of the United States.
Thompson interviews Kane's estranged best friend, Jedediah Leland, in a retirement home. Leland says that Kane's marriage to Emily disintegrated over the years, and he began an affair with amateur singer Susan Alexander while running for Governor of New York. Both his wife and his political opponent discovered the affair, and the public scandal ended his political career. Kane married Susan and forced her into a humiliating career as an opera singer (for which she had neither the talent nor the ambition). Kane arranged for a large opera house to be built in Chicago for Susan to perform in. After Leland began to write a negative review of Susan's disastrous opera debut, Kane fired him but finished the negative review and printed it. Susan protested that she never wanted the opera career anyway, but Kane forced her to continue the season.
Susan consents to an interview with Thompson and describes the aftermath of her opera career. She attempted suicide, and Kane finally allowed her to abandon singing. After many unhappy years living at Xanadu with Kane, the two had an argument that culminated in Kane slapping Susan. Susan decided to leave Kane. Kane's butler Raymond recounts that, after Susan moved out of Xanadu, Kane began violently destroying the contents of her former bedroom. When Kane discovered a snow globe, he calmed down and tearfully said "Rosebud". Thompson concludes that he cannot solve the mystery and that the meaning of Kane's last word will remain unknown.
At Xanadu, Kane's belongings are cataloged or discarded by the mansion's staff. They find a sled, the one on which eight-year-old Kane was playing on the day that he was taken from his home in Colorado, and throw it into a furnace with other items. Unknown to the staff, the sled's trade name, printed on top, becomes visible through the flames: "Rosebud".
Cast
[edit]
The beginning of the film's ending credits states that "Most of the principal actors in Citizen Kane are new to motion pictures. The Mercury Theatre is proud to introduce them."[12] The cast is then listed in the following order, with Orson Welles' credit for playing Charles Foster Kane appearing last:[12]
Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland, Kane's best friend and a reporter for The Inquirer. Cotten also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane, Kane's mistress and second wife.[13]
Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane, Kane's mother.[13]
Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane, Kane's first wife.[13]
Ray Collins as Jim W. Gettys, Kane's political rival for the post of Governor of New York.[13]
Erskine Sanford as Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer. Sanford also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein, Kane's friend and employee at The Inquirer.[13]
William Alland as Jerry Thompson, a reporter for News on the March. Alland also voices the narrator of the News on the March newsreel.[13]
Paul Stewart as Raymond, Kane's butler.[13]
George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker who becomes Kane's legal guardian.[13]
Fortunio Bonanova as Signor Matiste, vocal coach of Susan Alexander Kane.[13]
Gus Schilling as John, headwaiter at the El Rancho nightclub. Schilling also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Philip Van Zandt as Mr. Rawlston, News on the March open at the producer.[13]
Georgia Backus as Bertha Anderson, attendant at the library of Walter Parks Thatcher.[13]
Harry Shannon as Jim Kane, Kane's father.[13]
Sonny Bupp as Charles Foster Kane III, Kane's son.[13]
Buddy Swan as Charles Foster Kane, age eight.[13]
Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper publisher.[13]
Additionally, Charles Bennett appears as the entertainer at the head of the chorus line in the Inquirer party sequence,[14]: 40–41 and cinematographer Gregg Toland makes a cameo appearance as an interviewer depicted in part of the News on the March newsreel.[15][16] Actor Alan Ladd, still unknown at that time, makes a small appearance as a reporter smoking a pipe at the end of the film.[17]
Production
[edit]
Development
[edit]
Hollywood had shown interest in Welles as early as 1936.[18]: 40 He turned down three scripts sent to him by Warner Bros. In 1937, he declined offers from David O. Selznick, who asked him to head his film company's story department, and William Wyler, who wanted him for a supporting role in Wuthering Heights. "Although the possibility of making huge amounts of money in Hollywood greatly attracted him," wrote biographer Frank Brady, "he was still totally, hopelessly, insanely in love with the theater, and it is there that he had every intention of remaining to make his mark."[19]: 118–119, 130
Following the 1938 "The War of the Worlds" broadcast of his CBS radio series The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was lured to Hollywood with a remarkable contract.[20]: 1–2, 153 RKO Pictures studio head George J. Schaefer wanted to work with Welles after the notorious broadcast, believing that Welles had a gift for attracting mass attention.[21]: 170 RKO was also uncharacteristically profitable and was entering into a series of independent production contracts that would add more artistically prestigious films to its roster.[20]: 1–2, 153 Throughout the spring and early summer of 1939, Schaefer constantly tried to lure the reluctant Welles to Hollywood.[21]: 170 Welles was in financial trouble after failure of his plays Five Kings and The Green Goddess. At first he simply wanted to spend three months in Hollywood and earn enough money to pay his debts and fund his next theatrical season.[21]: 170 Welles first arrived on July 20, 1939,[21]: 168 and on his first tour, he called the movie studio "the greatest electric train set a boy ever had".[21]: 174
Welles signed his contract with RKO on August 21, which stipulated that Welles would act in, direct, produce and write two films. Mercury would get $100,000 for the first film by January 1, 1940, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000, and $125,000 for a second film by January 1, 1941, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000. The most controversial aspect of the contract was granting Welles complete artistic control of the two films so long as RKO approved both projects' stories[21]: 169 and so long as the budget did not exceed $500,000.[20]: 1–2, 153 RKO executives would not be allowed to see any footage until Welles chose to show it to them, and no cuts could be made to either film without Welles's approval.[21]: 169 Welles was allowed to develop the story without interference, select his own cast and crew, and have the right of final cut. Granting the final cut privilege was unprecedented for a studio because it placed artistic considerations over financial investment. The contract was deeply resented in the film industry, and the Hollywood press took every opportunity to mock RKO and Welles. Schaefer remained a great supporter[20]: 1–2, 153 and saw the unprecedented contract as good publicity.[21]: 170 Film scholar Robert L. Carringer wrote: "The simple fact seems to be that Schaefer believed Welles was going to pull off something really big almost as much as Welles did himself."[20]: 1–2, 153
Welles spent the first five months of his RKO contract trying to get his first project going, without success. "They are laying bets over on the RKO lot that the Orson Welles deal will end up without Orson ever doing a picture there," wrote The Hollywood Reporter.[20]: 15 It was agreed that Welles would film Heart of Darkness, previously adapted for The Mercury Theatre on the Air, which would be presented entirely through a first-person camera. After elaborate pre-production and a day of test shooting with a hand-held camera—unheard of at the time—the project never reached production because Welles was unable to trim $50,000 from its budget.[a][b][22]: 30–31 Schaefer told Welles that the $500,000 budget could not be exceeded; as war loomed, revenue was declining sharply in Europe by the fall of 1939.[19]: 215–216
He then started work on the idea that became Citizen Kane. Knowing the script would take time to prepare, Welles suggested to RKO that while that was being done—"so the year wouldn't be lost"—he make a humorous political thriller. Welles proposed The Smiler with a Knife, from a novel by Cecil Day-Lewis.[22]: 33–34 When that project stalled in December 1939, Welles began brainstorming other story ideas with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who had been writing Mercury radio scripts. "Arguing, inventing, discarding, these two powerful, headstrong, dazzlingly articulate personalities thrashed toward Kane", wrote biographer Richard Meryman.[23]: 245–246
Screenplay
[edit]
Main article: Screenplay for Citizen Kane
One of the long-standing controversies about Citizen Kane has been the authorship of the screenplay.[23]: 237 Welles conceived the project with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who was writing radio plays for Welles's CBS Radio series, The Campbell Playhouse.[20]: 16 Mankiewicz based the original outline on the life of William Randolph Hearst, whom he knew socially and came to hate after being exiled from Hearst's circle.[23]: 231
In February 1940 Welles supplied Mankiewicz with 300 pages of notes and put him under contract to write the first draft screenplay under the supervision of John Houseman, Welles's former partner in the Mercury Theatre. Welles later explained, "I left him on his own finally, because we'd started to waste too much time haggling. So, after mutual agreements on storyline and character, Mank went off with Houseman and did his version, while I stayed in Hollywood and wrote mine."[22]: 54 Taking these drafts, Welles drastically condensed and rearranged them, then added scenes of his own. The industry accused Welles of underplaying Mankiewicz's contribution to the script, but Welles countered the attacks by saying, "At the end, naturally, I was the one making the picture, after all—who had to make the decisions. I used what I wanted of Mank's and, rightly or wrongly, kept what I liked of my own."[22]: 54
The terms of the contract stated that Mankiewicz was to receive no credit for his work, as he was hired as a script doctor.[24]: 487 Before he signed the contract Mankiewicz was particularly advised by his agents that all credit for his work belonged to Welles and the Mercury Theatre, the "author and creator".[19]: 236–237 As the film neared release, however, Mankiewicz began wanting a writing credit for the film and even threatened to take out full-page advertisements in trade papers and to get his friend Ben Hecht to write an exposé for The Saturday Evening Post.[25] Mankiewicz also threatened to go to the Screen Writers Guild and claim full credit for writing the entire script by himself.[21]: 204
After lodging a protest with the Screen Writers Guild, Mankiewicz withdrew it, then vacillated. The question was resolved in January 1941 when the studio, RKO Pictures, awarded Mankiewicz credit. The guild credit form listed Welles first, Mankiewicz second. Welles's assistant Richard Wilson said that the person who circled Mankiewicz's name in pencil, then drew an arrow that put it in first place, was Welles. The official credit reads, "Screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles".[23]: 264–265 Mankiewicz's rancor toward Welles grew over the remaining twelve years of his life.[26]: 498
Questions over the authorship of the Citizen Kane screenplay were revived in 1971 by influential film critic Pauline Kael, whose controversial 50,000-word essay "Raising Kane" was commissioned as an introduction to the shooting script in The Citizen Kane Book,[22]: 494 published in October 1971.[27] The book-length essay first appeared in February 1971, in two consecutive issues of The New Yorker magazine.[22]: 494 [28] In the ensuing controversy, Welles was defended by colleagues, critics, biographers and scholars, but his reputation was damaged by its charges.[26]: 394 The essay's thesis was later questioned and some of Kael's findings were also contested in later years.[29][30][31]
Questions of authorship continued to come into sharper focus with Carringer's 1978 thoroughly researched essay, "The Scripts of Citizen Kane".[32][c] Carringer studied the collection of script records—"almost a day-to-day record of the history of the scripting"—that was then still intact at RKO. He reviewed all seven drafts and concluded that "the full evidence reveals that Welles's contribution to the Citizen Kane script was not only substantial but definitive."[32]: 80
Casting
[edit]
Citizen Kane was a rare film in that its principal roles were played by actors new to motion pictures. Ten were billed as Mercury Actors, members of the skilled repertory company assembled by Welles for the stage and radio performances of the Mercury Theatre, an independent theater company he founded with Houseman in 1937.[19]: 119–120 [34] "He loved to use the Mercury players," wrote biographer Charles Higham, "and consequently he launched several of them on movie careers."[35]: 155
The film represents the feature film debuts of William Alland, Ray Collins, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane, Paul Stewart, and Welles himself.[13] Despite never having appeared in feature films, some of the cast members were already well known to the public. Cotten had recently become a Broadway star in the hit play The Philadelphia Story with Katharine Hepburn[21]: 187 and Sloane was well known for his role on the radio show The Goldbergs.[21]: 187 [d] Mercury actor George Coulouris was a star of the stage in New York and London.[34]
Not all of the cast came from the Mercury Players. Welles cast Dorothy Comingore, an actress who played supporting parts in films since 1934 using the name "Linda Winters",[36] as Susan Alexander Kane. A discovery of Charlie Chaplin, Comingore was recommended to Welles by Chaplin,[37]: 170 who then met Comingore at a party in Los Angeles and immediately cast her.[38]: 44
Welles had met stage actress Ruth Warrick while visiting New York on a break from Hollywood and remembered her as a good fit for Emily Norton Kane,[21]: 188 later saying that she looked the part.[37]: 169 Warrick told Carringer that she was struck by the extraordinary resemblance between herself and Welles's mother when she saw a photograph of Beatrice Ives Welles. She characterized her own personal relationship with Welles as motherly.[39]: 14
"He trained us for films at the same time that he was training himself," recalled Agnes Moorehead. "Orson believed in good acting, and he realized that rehearsals were needed to get the most from his actors. That was something new in Hollywood: nobody seemed interested in bringing in a group to rehearse before scenes were shot. But Orson knew it was necessary, and we rehearsed every sequence before it was shot."[40]: 9
When The March of Time narrator Westbrook Van Voorhis asked for $25,000 to narrate the News on the March sequence, Alland demonstrated his ability to imitate Van Voorhis and Welles cast him.[41]
Welles later said that casting character actor Gino Corrado in the small part of the waiter at the El Rancho broke his heart. Corrado had appeared in many Hollywood films, often as a waiter, and Welles wanted all of the actors to be new to films.[37]: 171
Other uncredited roles went to Thomas A. Curran as Teddy Roosevelt in the faux newsreel; Richard Baer as Hillman, a man at Madison Square Garden, and a man in the News on the March screening room; and Alan Ladd, Arthur O'Connell and Louise Currie as reporters at Xanadu.[13]
Ruth Warrick (died 2005) was the last surviving member of the principal cast. Sonny Bupp (died 2007), who played Kane's young son, was the last surviving credited cast member.[42] Kathryn Trosper Popper (died March 6, 2016) was reported to have been the last surviving actor to have appeared in Citizen Kane.[43] Jean Forward (died September 2016), a soprano who dubbed the singing voice of Susan Alexander, was the last surviving performer from the film.[44]
Filming
[edit]
Production advisor Miriam Geiger quickly compiled a handmade film textbook for Welles, a practical reference book of film techniques that he studied carefully. He then taught himself filmmaking by matching its visual vocabulary to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which he ordered from the Museum of Modern Art,[21]: 173 and films by Frank Capra, René Clair, Fritz Lang, King Vidor[45]: 1172 : 1171 and Jean Renoir.[19]: 209 The one film he genuinely studied was John Ford's Stagecoach,[22]: 29 which he watched 40 times.[46] "As it turned out, the first day I ever walked onto a set was my first day as a director," Welles said. "I'd learned whatever I knew in the projection room—from Ford. After dinner every night for about a month, I'd run Stagecoach, often with some different technician or department head from the studio, and ask questions. 'How was this done?' 'Why was this done?' It was like going to school."[22]: 29
Welles's cinematographer for the film was Gregg Toland, described by Welles as "just then, the number-one cameraman in the world." To Welles's astonishment, Toland visited him at his office and said, "I want you to use me on your picture." He had seen some of the Mercury stage productions (including Caesar[26]: 66 ) and said he wanted to work with someone who had never made a movie.[22]: 59 RKO hired Toland on loan from Samuel Goldwyn Productions[47]: 10 in the first week of June 1940.[20]: 40
"And he never tried to impress us that he was doing any miracles," Welles recalled. "I was calling for things only a beginner would have been ignorant enough to think anybody could ever do, and there he was, doing them."[22]: 60 Toland later explained that he wanted to work with Welles because he anticipated the first-time director's inexperience and reputation for audacious experimentation in the theater would allow the cinematographer to try new and innovative camera techniques that typical Hollywood films would never have allowed him to do.[21]: 186 Unaware of filmmaking protocol, Welles adjusted the lights on set as he was accustomed to doing in the theater; Toland quietly re-balanced them, and was angry when one of the crew informed Welles that he was infringing on Toland's responsibilities.[48]: 5:33–6:06 During the first few weeks of June, Welles had lengthy discussions about the film with Toland and art director Perry Ferguson in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening he worked with actors and revised the script.[20]: 69
On June 29, 1940—a Saturday morning when few inquisitive studio executives would be around—Welles began filming Citizen Kane.[20]: 69 [26]: 107 After the disappointment of having Heart of Darkness canceled,[22]: 30–31 Welles followed Ferguson's suggestion[e][22]: 57 and deceived RKO into believing that he was simply shooting camera tests. "But we were shooting the picture," Welles said, "because we wanted to get started and be already into it before anybody knew about it."[22]: 57
At the time RKO executives were pressuring him to agree to direct a film called The Men from Mars, to capitalize on "The War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. Welles said that he would consider making the project but wanted to make a different film first. At this time he did not inform them that he had already begun filming Citizen Kane.[21]: 186
The early footage was called "Orson Welles Tests" on all paperwork.[20]: 69 The first "test" shot was the News on the March projection room scene, economically filmed in a real studio projection room in darkness that masked many actors who appeared in other roles later in the film.[20]: 69 [22]: 77–78 [f] "At $809 Orson did run substantially beyond the test budget of $528—to create one of the most famous scenes in movie history," wrote Barton Whaley.[26]: 107
The next scenes were the El Rancho nightclub scenes and the scene in which Susan attempts suicide.[g][20]: 69 Welles later said that the nightclub set was available after another film had wrapped and that filming took 10 to 12 days to complete. For these scenes Welles had Comingore's throat sprayed with chemicals to give her voice a harsh, raspy tone.[37]: 170–171 Other scenes shot in secret included those in which Thompson interviews Leland and Bernstein, which were also shot on sets built for other films.[41]
During production, the film was referred to as RKO 281. Most of the filming took place in what is now Stage 19 on the Paramount Pictures lot in Hollywood.[51] There was some location filming at Balboa Park in San Diego and the San Diego Zoo.[52] Photographs of German-Jewish investment banker Otto Hermann Kahn's real-life estate Oheka Castle were used to portray the fictional Xanadu.[53][54]
In the end of July, RKO approved the film and Welles was allowed to officially begin shooting, despite having already been filming "tests" for several weeks. Welles leaked stories to newspaper reporters that the "tests" had been so good that there was no need to re-shoot them. The first "official" scene to be shot was the breakfast montage sequence between Kane and his first wife Emily. To strategically save money and appease the RKO executives who opposed him, Welles rehearsed scenes extensively before actually shooting and filmed very few takes of each shot set-up.[21]: 193 Welles never shot master shots for any scene after Toland told him that Ford never shot them.[37]: 169 To appease the increasingly curious press, Welles threw a cocktail party for selected reporters, promising that they could watch a scene being filmed. When the journalists arrived Welles told them they had "just finished" shooting for the day but still had the party.[21]: 193 Welles told the press that he was ahead of schedule (without factoring in the month of "test shooting"), thus discrediting claims that after a year in Hollywood without making a film he was a failure in the film industry.[21]: 194
Welles usually worked 16 to 18 hours a day on the film. He often began work at 4 a.m. since the special effects make-up used to age him for certain scenes took up to four hours to apply. Welles used this time to discuss the day's shooting with Toland and other crew members. The special contact lenses used to make Welles look elderly proved very painful, and a doctor was employed to place them into Welles's eyes. Welles had difficulty seeing clearly while wearing them, which caused him to badly cut his wrist when shooting the scene in which Kane breaks up the furniture in Susan's bedroom. While shooting the scene in which Kane shouts at Gettys on the stairs of Susan Alexander's apartment building, Welles fell ten feet; an X-ray revealed two bone chips in his ankle.[21]: 194
The injury required him to direct the film from a wheelchair for two weeks.[55][21]: 194–195 He eventually wore a steel brace to resume performing on camera; it is visible in the low-angle scene between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election.[h][22]: 61 For the final scene, a stage at the Selznick studio was equipped with a working furnace, and multiple takes were required to show the sled being put into the fire and the word "Rosebud" consumed. Paul Stewart recalled that on the ninth take the Culver City Fire Department arrived in full gear because the furnace had grown so hot the flue caught fire. "Orson was delighted with the commotion", he said.[40]: 8–9 [56]
When "Rosebud" was burned, Welles choreographed[clarification needed] the scene while he had composer Bernard Herrmann's cue playing on the set.[57]
Unlike Schaefer, many members of RKO's board of governors did not like Welles or the control that his contract gave him.[21]: 186 However such board members as Nelson Rockefeller and NBC chief David Sarnoff[45]: 1170 were sympathetic to Welles.[58] Throughout production Welles had problems with these executives not respecting his contract's stipulation of non-interference and several spies arrived on set to report what they saw to the executives. When the executives would sometimes arrive on set unannounced the entire cast and crew would suddenly start playing softball until they left. Before official shooting began the executives intercepted all copies of the script and delayed their delivery to Welles. They had one copy sent to their office in New York, resulting in it being leaked to press.[21]: 195
Principal shooting wrapped October 24. Welles then took several weeks away from the film for a lecture tour, during which he also scouted additional locations with Toland and Ferguson. Filming resumed November 15[20]: 87 with some re-shoots. Toland had to leave due to a commitment to shoot Howard Hughes' The Outlaw, but Toland's camera crew continued working on the film and Toland was replaced by RKO cinematographer Harry J. Wild. The final day of shooting on November 30 was Kane's death scene.[20]: 85 Welles boasted that he only went 21 days over his official shooting schedule, without factoring in the month of "camera tests".[21]: 195 According to RKO records, the film cost $839,727. Its estimated budget had been $723,800.[13]
Post-production
[edit]
Citizen Kane was edited by Robert Wise and assistant editor Mark Robson.[47]: 85 Both would become successful film directors. Wise was hired after Welles finished shooting the "camera tests" and began officially making the film. Wise said that Welles "had an older editor assigned to him for those tests and evidently he was not too happy and asked to have somebody else. I was roughly Orson's age and had several good credits." Wise and Robson began editing the film while it was still shooting and said that they "could tell certainly that we were getting something very special. It was outstanding film day in and day out."[45]: 1210
Welles gave Wise detailed instructions and was usually not present during the film's editing.[20]: 109 The film was very well planned out and intentionally shot for such post-production techniques as slow dissolves.[41] The lack of coverage made editing easy since Welles and Toland edited the film "in camera" by leaving few options of how it could be put together.[20]: 110 Wise said the breakfast table sequence took weeks to edit and get the correct "timing" and "rhythm" for the whip pans and overlapping dialogue.[41] The News on the March sequence was edited by RKO's newsreel division to give it authenticity.[20]: 110 They used stock footage from Pathé News and the General Film Library.[13]
During post-production Welles and special effects artist Linwood G. Dunn experimented with an optical printer to improve certain scenes that Welles found unsatisfactory from the footage.[41] Whereas Welles was often immediately pleased with Wise's work, he would require Dunn and post-production audio engineer James G. Stewart to re-do their work several times until he was satisfied.[20]: 109
Welles hired Bernard Herrmann to compose the film's score. Where most Hollywood film scores were written quickly, in as few as two or three weeks after filming was completed, Herrmann was given 12 weeks to write the music. He had sufficient time to do his own orchestrations and conducting, and worked on the film reel by reel as it was shot and cut. He wrote complete musical pieces for some of the montages, and Welles edited many of the scenes to match their length.[59]
Style
[edit]
Film scholars and historians view Citizen Kane as Welles's attempt to create a new style of filmmaking by studying various forms of it and combining them into one. However, Welles stated that his love for cinema began only when he started working on the film. When asked where he got the confidence as a first-time director to direct a film so radically different from contemporary cinema, he responded, "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance—you know there's no confidence to equal it. It's only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you're timid or careful."[60]: 80
David Bordwell wrote that "The best way to understand Citizen Kane is to stop worshipping it as a triumph of technique." Bordwell argues that the film did not invent any of its famous techniques such as deep focus cinematography, shots of the ceilings, chiaroscuro lighting and temporal jump-cuts, and that many of these stylistics had been used in German Expressionist films of the 1920s, such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. But Bordwell asserts that the film did put them all together for the first time and perfected the medium in one single film.[45]: 1171 In a 1948 interview, D. W. Griffith said, "I loved Citizen Kane and particularly loved the ideas he took from me."[61]
Arguments against the film's cinematic innovations were made as early as 1946 when French historian Georges Sadoul wrote, "The film is an encyclopedia of old techniques." He pointed out such examples as compositions that used both the foreground and the background in the films of Auguste and Louis Lumière, special effects used in the films of Georges Méliès, shots of the ceiling in Erich von Stroheim's Greed and newsreel montages in the films of Dziga Vertov.[62]
French film critic André Bazin defended the film, writing: "In this respect, the accusation of plagiarism could very well be extended to the film's use of panchromatic film or its exploitation of the properties of gelatinous silver halide." Bazin disagreed with Sadoul's comparison to Lumière's cinematography since Citizen Kane used more sophisticated lenses,[63]: 232 but acknowledged that it had similarities to such previous works as The 49th Parallel and The Power and the Glory. Bazin stated that "even if Welles did not invent the cinematic devices employed in Citizen Kane, one should nevertheless credit him with the invention of their meaning."[63]: 233 Bazin championed the techniques in the film for its depiction of heightened reality, but Bordwell believed that the film's use of special effects contradicted some of Bazin's theories.[64]: 75
Storytelling techniques
[edit]
Citizen Kane rejects the traditional linear, chronological narrative and tells Kane's story entirely in flashbacks using different points of view, many of them from Kane's aged and forgetful associates, the cinematic equivalent of the unreliable narrator in literature.[65]: 83 Welles also dispenses with the idea of a single storyteller and uses multiple narrators to recount Kane's life, a technique not used previously in Hollywood films.[65]: 81 Each narrator recounts a different part of Kane's life, with each story overlapping another.[66] The film depicts Kane as an enigma, a complicated man who leaves viewers with more questions than answers as to his character, such as the newsreel footage where he is attacked for being both a communist and a fascist.[65]: 82–84
The technique of flashbacks had been used in earlier films, notably The Power and the Glory (1933),[67] but no film was as immersed in it as Citizen Kane. Thompson the reporter acts as a surrogate for the audience, questioning Kane's associates and piecing together his life.[66]
Films typically had an "omniscient perspective" at the time, which Marilyn Fabe says give the audience the "illusion that we are looking with impunity into a world which is unaware of our gaze". Citizen Kane also begins in that fashion until the News on the March sequence, after which we the audience see the film through the perspectives of others.[65]: 81 The News on the March sequence gives an overview of Kane's entire life (and the film's entire story) at the beginning of the film, leaving the audience without the typical suspense of wondering how it will end. Instead, the film's repetitions of events compels the audience to analyze and wonder why Kane's life happened the way that it did, under the pretext of finding out what "Rosebud" means. The film then returns to the omniscient perspective in the final scene, when only the audience discovers what "Rosebud" is.[65]: 82–83
Cinematography
[edit]
The most innovative technical aspect of Citizen Kane is the extended use of deep focus,[68] where the foreground, background, and everything in between are all in sharp focus. Cinematographer Toland did this through his experimentation with lenses and lighting. Toland described the achievement in an article for Theatre Arts magazine, made possible by the sensitivity of modern speed film:
New developments in the science of motion picture photography are not abundant at this advanced stage of the game but periodically one is perfected to make this a greater art. Of these I am in an excellent position to discuss what is termed "Pan-focus", as I have been active for two years in its development and used it for the first time in Citizen Kane. Through its use, it is possible to photograph action from a range of eighteen inches from the camera lens to over two hundred feet away, with extreme foreground and background figures and action both recorded in sharp relief. Hitherto, the camera had to be focused either for a close or a distant shot, all efforts to encompass both at the same time resulting in one or the other being out of focus. This handicap necessitated the breaking up of a scene into long and short angles, with much consequent loss of realism. With pan-focus, the camera, like the human eye, sees an entire panorama at once, with everything clear and lifelike.[69]
Another unorthodox method used in the film was the low-angle shots facing upwards, thus allowing ceilings to be shown in the background of several scenes. Every set was built with a ceiling[69] which broke with studio convention, and many were constructed of fabric that concealed microphones.[70] Welles felt that the camera should show what the eye sees, and that it was a bad theatrical convention to pretend that there was no ceiling—"a big lie in order to get all those terrible lights up there," he said. He became fascinated with the look of low angles, which made even dull interiors look interesting. One extremely low angle is used to photograph the encounter between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election. A hole was dug for the camera, which required drilling into the concrete floor.[22]: 61–62
Welles credited Toland on the same title card as himself. "It's impossible to say how much I owe to Gregg," he said. "He was superb."[22]: 59 [71] He called Toland "the best director of photography that ever existed."[72]
Sound
[edit]
Citizen Kane's sound was recorded by Bailey Fesler and re-recorded in post-production by audio engineer James G. Stewart,[47]: 85 both of whom had worked in radio.[20]: 102 Stewart said that Hollywood films never deviated from a basic pattern of how sound could be recorded or used, but with Welles "deviation from the pattern was possible because he demanded it."[41] Although the film is known for its complex soundtrack, much of the audio is heard as it was recorded by Fesler and without manipulation.[20]: 102
Welles used techniques from radio like overlapping dialogue. The scene in which characters sing "Oh, Mr. Kane" was especially complicated and required mixing several soundtracks together.[20]: 104 He also used different "sound perspectives" to create the illusion of distances,[20]: 101 such as in scenes at Xanadu where characters speak to each other at far distances.[41] Welles experimented with sound in post-production, creating audio montages,[73]: 94 and chose to create all of the sound effects for the film instead of using RKO's library of sound effects.[20]: 100
Welles used an aural technique from radio called the "lightning-mix". Welles used this technique to link complex montage sequences via a series of related sounds or phrases. For example, Kane grows from a child into a young man in just two shots. As Thatcher hands eight-year-old Kane a sled and wishes him a Merry Christmas, the sequence suddenly jumps to a shot of Thatcher fifteen years later, completing the sentence he began in both the previous shot and the chronological past. Other radio techniques include using a number of voices, each saying a sentence or sometimes merely a fragment of a sentence, and splicing the dialogue together in quick succession, such as the projection room scene.[74]: 413–412 The film's sound cost $16,996, but was originally budgeted at $7,288.[20]: 105
Film critic and director François Truffaut wrote that "Before Kane, nobody in Hollywood knew how to set music properly in movies. Kane was the first, in fact the only, great film that uses radio techniques. ... A lot of filmmakers know enough to follow Auguste Renoir's advice to fill the eyes with images at all costs, but only Orson Welles understood that the sound track had to be filled in the same way."[75] Cedric Belfrage of The Clipper wrote "of all of the delectable flavours that linger on the palate after seeing Kane, the use of sound is the strongest."[45]: 1171
Make-up
[edit]
The make-up for Citizen Kane was created and applied by Maurice Seiderman (1907–1989), a junior member of the RKO make-up department.[76]: 19 He had not been accepted into the union, which recognized him as only an apprentice, but RKO nevertheless used him to make up principal actors.[76]: 19 "Apprentices were not supposed to make up any principals, only extras, and an apprentice could not be on a set without a journeyman present," wrote make-up artist Dick Smith, who became friends with Seiderman in 1979. "During his years at RKO I suspect these rules were probably overlooked often."[76]: 19 "Seiderman had gained a reputation as one of the most inventive and creatively precise up-and-coming makeup men in Hollywood," wrote biographer Frank Brady.[19]: 253
On an early tour of RKO, Welles met Seiderman in the small make-up lab that he created for himself in an unused dressing room.[76]: 19 "Welles fastened on to him at once," wrote biographer Charles Higham, as Seiderman had developed his own makeup methods "that ensured complete naturalness of expression—a naturalness unrivaled in Hollywood."[35]: 157 Seiderman developed a thorough plan for aging the principal characters, first making a plaster cast of the face of each of the actors who aged. He made a plaster mold of Welles's body down to the hips.[77]: 46
"My sculptural techniques for the characters' aging were handled by adding pieces of white modeling clay, which matched the plaster, onto the surface of each bust," Seiderman told Norman Gambill. When Seiderman achieved the desired effect, he cast the clay pieces in a soft plastic material[77]: 46 that he formulated himself.[76]: 20 These appliances were then placed onto the plaster bust and a four-piece mold was made for each phase of aging. The castings were then fully painted and paired with the appropriate wig for evaluation.[77]: 46–47
Before the actors went before the cameras each day, the pliable pieces were applied directly to their faces to recreate Seiderman's sculptural image. The facial surface was underpainted in a flexible red plastic compound;[77]: 43 The red ground resulted in a warmth of tone that was picked up by the panchromatic film. Over that was applied liquid grease paint, and finally a colorless translucent talcum.[77]: 42–43 Seiderman created the effect of skin pores on Kane's face by stippling the surface with a negative cast made from an orange peel.[77]: 42, 47
Welles often arrived on the set at 2:30 am,[22]: 69 as application of the sculptural make-up took 3½ hours for the oldest incarnation of Kane. The make-up included appliances to age Welles's shoulders, breast, and stomach.[76]: 19–20 "In the film and production photographs, you can see that Kane had a belly that overhung," Seiderman said. "That was not a costume, it was the rubber sculpture that created the image. You could see how Kane's silk shirt clung wetly to the character's body. It could not have been done any other way."[77]: 46
Seiderman worked with Charles Wright on the wigs. These went over a flexible skull cover that Seiderman created and sewed into place with elastic thread. When he found the wigs too full, he untied one hair at a time to alter their shape. Kane's mustache was inserted into the makeup surface a few hairs at a time, to realistically vary the color and texture.[77]: 43, 47 He also made scleral lenses for Welles, Dorothy Comingore, George Coulouris, and Everett Sloane to dull the brightness of their young eyes. The lenses took a long time to fit properly, and Seiderman began work on them before devising any of the other makeup. "I painted them to age in phases, ending with the blood vessels and the arcus senilis of old age."[77]: 47 Seiderman's tour de force was the breakfast montage, shot all in one day. "Twelve years, two years shot at each scene," he said.[77]: 47
The major studios gave screen credit for make-up only to the department head. When RKO make-up department head Mel Berns refused to share credit with Seiderman, who was only an apprentice, Welles told Berns that there would be no make-up credit. Welles signed a large advertisement in the Los Angeles newspaper:[76]: 22 [77]: 48
THANKS TO EVERYBODY WHO GETS SCREEN CREDIT FOR "CITIZEN KANE"
AND THANKS TO THOSE WHO DON'T
TO ALL THE ACTORS, THE CREW, THE OFFICE, THE MUSICIANS, EVERYBODY
AND PARTICULARLY TO MAURICE SEIDERMAN, THE BEST MAKE-UP MAN IN THE WORLD[76]: 20
Sets
[edit]
Although credited as an assistant, the film's art direction was done by Perry Ferguson.[47]: 85 Welles and Ferguson got along during their collaboration.[20]: 37 In the weeks before production began Welles, Toland and Ferguson met regularly to discuss the film and plan every shot, set design and prop. Ferguson would take notes during these discussions and create rough designs of the sets and story boards for individual shots. After Welles approved the rough sketches, Ferguson made miniature models for Welles and Toland to experiment on with a periscope in order to rehearse and perfect each shot. Ferguson then had detailed drawings made for the set design, including the film's lighting design. The set design was an integral part of the film's overall look and Toland's cinematography.[20]: 42
In the original script the Great Hall at Xanadu was modeled after the Great Hall in Hearst Castle and its design included a mixture of Renaissance and Gothic styles.[20]: 50–51 "The Hearstian element is brought out in the almost perverse juxtaposition of incongruous architectural styles and motifs," wrote Carringer.[20]: 54 Before RKO cut the film's budget, Ferguson's designs were more elaborate and resembled the production designs of early Cecil B. DeMille films and Intolerance.[20]: 55 The budget cuts reduced Ferguson's budget by 33 percent and his work cost $58,775 total,[20]: 65 which was below average at that time.[73]: 93
To save costs Ferguson and Welles re-wrote scenes in Xanadu's living room and transported them to the Great Hall. A large staircase from another film was found and used at no additional cost.[20]: 56–57 When asked about the limited budget, Ferguson said "Very often—as in that much-discussed 'Xanadu' set in Citizen Kane—we can make a foreground piece, a background piece, and imaginative lighting suggests a great deal more on the screen than actually exists on the stage."[20]: 65–66 According to the film's official budget there were 81 sets built, but Ferguson said there were between 106 and 116.[20]: 64
Still photographs of Oheka Castle in Huntington, New York, were used in the opening montage, representing Kane's Xanadu estate.[78][79] Ferguson also designed statues from Kane's collection with styles ranging from Greek to German Gothic.[20]: 61 The sets were also built to accommodate Toland's camera movements. Walls were built to fold and furniture could quickly be moved. The film's famous ceilings were made out of muslin fabric and camera boxes were built into the floors for low angle shots.[20]: 64–65 Welles later said that he was proud that the film production value looked much more expensive than the film's budget. Although neither worked with Welles again, Toland and Ferguson collaborated in several films in the 1940s.[20]: 65
Special effects
[edit]
The film's special effects were supervised by RKO department head Vernon L. Walker.[47]: 85 Welles pioneered several visual effects to cheaply shoot things like crowd scenes and large interior spaces. For example, the scene in which the camera in the opera house rises dramatically to the rafters, to show the workmen showing a lack of appreciation for Susan Alexander Kane's performance, was shot by a camera craning upwards over the performance scene, then a curtain wipe to a miniature of the upper regions of the house, and then another curtain wipe matching it again with the scene of the workmen. Other scenes effectively employed miniatures to make the film look much more expensive than it truly was, such as various shots of Xanadu.[80]
Some shots included rear screen projection in the background, such as Thompson's interview of Leland and some of the ocean backgrounds at Xanadu.[20]: 88 Bordwell claims that the scene where Thatcher agrees to be Kane's guardian used rear screen projection to depict young Kane in the background, despite this scene being cited as a prime example of Toland's deep focus cinematography.[64]: 74 A special effects camera crew from Walker's department was required for the extreme close-up shots such as Kane's lips when he says "Rosebud" and the shot of the typewriter typing Susan's bad review.[20]: 88
Optical effects artist Dunn claimed that "up to 80 percent of some reels was optically printed." These shots were traditionally attributed to Toland for years.[81]: 110 The optical printer improved some of the deep focus shots.[20]: 92 One problem with the optical printer was that it sometimes created excessive graininess, such as the optical zoom out of the snow globe. Welles decided to superimpose snow falling to mask the graininess in these shots.[20]: 94 Toland said that he disliked the results of the optical printer,[20]: 92 but acknowledged that "RKO special effects expert Vernon Walker, ASC, and his staff handled their part of the production—a by no means inconsiderable assignment—with ability and fine understanding."[64]: 74–75
Any time deep focus was impossible—as in the scene in which Kane finishes a negative review of Susan's opera while at the same time firing the person who began writing the review—an optical printer was used to make the whole screen appear in focus, visually layering one piece of film onto another.[20]: 92 However, some apparently deep-focus shots were the result of in-camera effects, as in the famous scene in which Kane breaks into Susan's room after her suicide attempt. In the background, Kane and another man break into the room, while simultaneously the medicine bottle and a glass with a spoon in it are in closeup in the foreground. The shot was an in-camera matte shot. The foreground was shot first, with the background dark. Then the background was lit, the foreground darkened, the film rewound, and the scene re-shot with the background action.[20]: 82
Music
[edit]
The film's music was composed by Bernard Herrmann.[82]: 72 Herrmann had composed for Welles for his Mercury Theatre radio broadcasts.[82]: 63 Because it was Herrmann's first motion picture score, RKO wanted to pay him only a small fee, but Welles insisted he be paid at the same rate as Max Steiner.[82]: 72
The score established Herrmann as an important new composer of film soundtracks[83] and eschewed the typical Hollywood practice of scoring a film with virtually non-stop music. Instead Herrmann used what he later described as "radio scoring", musical cues typically 5–15 seconds in length that bridge the action or suggest a different emotional response.[82]: 77–78 The breakfast montage sequence begins with a graceful waltz theme and gets darker with each variation on that theme as the passage of time leads to the hardening of Kane's personality and the breakdown of his first marriage.[84][85]
Herrmann realized that musicians slated to play his music were hired for individual unique sessions; there was no need to write for existing ensembles. This meant that he was free to score for unusual combinations of instruments, even instruments that are not commonly heard. In the opening sequence, for example, the tour of Kane's estate Xanadu, Herrmann introduces a recurring leitmotif played by low woodwinds, including a quartet of alto flutes.[86]
For Susan Alexander Kane's operatic sequence, Welles suggested that Herrmann compose a witty parody of a Mary Garden vehicle, an aria from Salammbô.[22]: 57 "Our problem was to create something that would give the audience the feeling of the quicksand into which this simple little girl, having a charming but small voice, is suddenly thrown," Herrmann said.[82]: 79 Writing in the style of a 19th-century French Oriental opera,[59] Herrmann put the aria in a key that would force the singer to strain to reach the high notes, culminating in a high D, well outside the range of Susan Alexander.[82]: 79–80 Soprano Jean Forward dubbed the vocal part for Comingore.[83] Houseman claimed to have written the libretto, based on Jean Racine's Athalie and Phedre,[87]: 460–461 although some confusion remains since Lucille Fletcher remembered preparing the lyrics.[82]: 80 Fletcher, then Herrmann's wife, wrote the libretto for his opera Wuthering Heights.[82]: 11
Music enthusiasts consider the scene in which Susan Alexander Kane attempts to sing the famous cavatina "Una voce poco fa" from Il barbiere di Siviglia by Gioachino Rossini with vocal coach Signor Matiste as especially memorable for depicting the horrors of learning music through mistakes.[88]
In 1972, Herrmann said, "I was fortunate to start my career with a film like Citizen Kane, it's been a downhill run ever since!" Welles loved Herrmann's score and told director Henry Jaglom that it was 50 percent responsible for the film's artistic success.[82]: 84
Some incidental music came from other sources. Welles heard the tune used for the publisher's theme, "Oh, Mr. Kane", in Mexico.[22]: 57 Called "A Poco No", the song was written by Pepe Guízar and special lyrics were written by Herman Ruby.[89]
"In a Mizz", a 1939 jazz song by Charlie Barnet and Haven Johnson, bookends Thompson's second interview of Susan Alexander Kane.[20]: 108 [89] "I kind of based the whole scene around that song," Welles said. "The music is by Nat Cole—it's his trio."[22]: 56 Later—beginning with the lyrics, "It can't be love"—"In a Mizz" is performed at the Everglades picnic, framing the fight in the tent between Susan and Kane.[20]: 108 Musicians including bandleader Cee Pee Johnson (drums), Alton Redd (vocals), Raymond Tate (trumpet), Buddy Collette (alto sax) and Buddy Banks (tenor sax) are featured.[90]
All of the music used in the newsreel came from the RKO music library, edited at Welles's request by the newsreel department to achieve what Herrmann called "their own crazy way of cutting". The News on the March theme that accompanies the newsreel titles is "Belgian March" by Anthony Collins, from the film Nurse Edith Cavell. Other examples are an excerpt from Alfred Newman's score for Gunga Din (the exploration of Xanadu), Roy Webb's theme for the film Reno (the growth of Kane's empire), and bits of Webb's score for Five Came Back (introducing Walter Parks Thatcher).[82]: 79 [89]
Editing
[edit]
One of the editing techniques used in Citizen Kane was the use of montage to collapse time and space, using an episodic sequence on the same set while the characters changed costume and make-up between cuts so that the scene following each cut would look as if it took place in the same location, but at a time long after the previous cut. In the breakfast montage, Welles chronicles the breakdown of Kane's first marriage in five vignettes that condense 16 years of story time into two minutes of screen time.[91] Welles said that the idea for the breakfast scene "was stolen from The Long Christmas Dinner by Thornton Wilder ... a one-act play, which is a long Christmas dinner that takes you through something like 60 years of a family's life."[22]: 51 The film often uses long dissolves to signify the passage of time and its psychological effect of the characters, such as the scene in which the abandoned sled is covered with snow after the young Kane is sent away with Thatcher.[65]: 90–91
Welles was influenced by the editing theories of Sergei Eisenstein by using jarring cuts that caused "sudden graphic or associative contrasts", such as the cut from Kane's deathbed to the beginning of the News on the March sequence and a sudden shot of a shrieking cockatoo at the beginning of Raymond's flashback.[65]: 88–89 Although the film typically favors mise-en-scène over montage, the scene in which Kane goes to Susan Alexander's apartment after first meeting her is the only one that is primarily cut as close-ups with shots and counter shots between Kane and Susan.[47]: 68 Fabe says that "by using a standard Hollywood technique sparingly, [Welles] revitalizes its psychological expressiveness."[65]: 88
Sources
[edit]
Main article: Sources for Citizen Kane
Welles never confirmed a principal source for the character of Charles Foster Kane. Houseman wrote that Kane is a synthesis of different personalities, with Hearst's life used as the main source. Some events and details were invented,[87]: 444 and Houseman wrote that he and Mankiewicz also "grafted anecdotes from other giants of journalism, including Pulitzer, Northcliffe and Mank's first boss, Herbert Bayard Swope."[87]: 444 Welles said, "Mr. Hearst was quite a bit like Kane, although Kane isn't really founded on Hearst in particular. Many people sat for it, so to speak".[60]: 78 He specifically acknowledged that aspects of Kane were drawn from the lives of two business tycoons familiar from his youth in Chicago—Samuel Insull and Harold Fowler McCormick.[i][22]: 49
The character of Jedediah Leland was based on drama critic Ashton Stevens, George Stevens's uncle and Welles's close boyhood friend.[22]: 66 Some detail came from Mankiewicz's own experience as a drama critic in New York.[23]: 77–78
Many assumed that the character of Susan Alexander Kane was based on Marion Davies, Hearst's mistress whose career he managed and whom Hearst promoted as a motion picture actress. This assumption was a major reason Hearst tried to destroy Citizen Kane.[92][j] Welles denied that the character was based on Davies,[94] whom he called "an extraordinary woman—nothing like the character Dorothy Comingore played in the movie."[22]: 49 He cited Insull's building of the Chicago Opera House, and McCormick's lavish promotion of the opera career of his second wife, Ganna Walska, as direct influences on the screenplay.[22]: 49
The character of political boss Jim W. Gettys is based on Charles F. Murphy, a leader in New York City's infamous Tammany Hall political machine.[28]: 61
Welles credited "Rosebud" to Mankiewicz.[22]: 53 Biographer Richard Meryman wrote that the symbol of Mankiewicz's own damaged childhood was a treasured bicycle, stolen while he visited the public library and not replaced by his family as punishment. He regarded it as the prototype of Charles Foster Kane's sled.[23]: 300 In his 2015 Welles biography, Patrick McGilligan reported that Mankiewicz himself stated that the word "Rosebud" was taken from the name of a famous racehorse, Old Rosebud. Mankiewicz had a bet on the horse in the 1914 Kentucky Derby, which he won, and McGilligan wrote that "Old Rosebud symbolized his lost youth, and the break with his family". In testimony for a copyright infringement suit brought by Hearst biographer Ferdinand Lundberg, Mankiewicz said, "I had undergone psycho-analysis, and Rosebud, under circumstances slightly resembling the circumstances in [Citizen Kane], played a prominent part."[95] Gore Vidal has argued in the New York Review of Books that "Rosebud was what Hearst called his friend Marion Davies's clitoris".[96]
The News on the March sequence that begins the film satirizes the journalistic style of The March of Time, the news documentary and dramatization series presented in movie theaters by Time Inc.[97][98] From 1935 to 1938[99]: 47 Welles was a member of the uncredited company of actors that presented the original radio version.[100]: 77
Houseman claimed that banker Walter P. Thatcher was loosely based on J. P. Morgan.[47]: 55 Bernstein was named for Dr. Maurice Bernstein, appointed Welles's guardian;[22]: 65–66 Sloane's portrayal was said to be based on Bernard Herrmann.[83] Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer, was named for actor Jack Carter.[35]: 155
Political themes
[edit]
Laura Mulvey explored the anti-fascist themes of Citizen Kane in her 1992 monograph for the British Film Institute. The News on the March newsreel presents Kane keeping company with Hitler and other dictators while he smugly assures the public that there will be no war.[101]: 44 She wrote that the film reflects "the battle between intervention and isolationism" then being waged in the United States; the film was released six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was laboring to win public opinion for entering World War II. "In the rhetoric of Citizen Kane," Mulvey writes, "the destiny of isolationism is realised in metaphor: in Kane's own fate, dying wealthy and lonely, surrounded by the detritus of European culture and history."[47]: 15
Journalist Ignacio Ramonet has cited the film as an early example of mass media manipulation of public opinion and the power that media conglomerates have on influencing the democratic process. He believes that this early example of a media mogul influencing politics is outdated and that today "there are media groups with the power of a thousand Citizen Kanes."[102][103] Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is sometimes labeled as a latter-day Citizen Kane.[104][105]
Comparisons have also been made between the career and character of Donald Trump and Charles Foster Kane.[106][107][108] Citizen Kane is reported to be one of Trump's favorite films, and his biographer Tim O'Brien has said that Trump is fascinated by and identifies with Kane.[109] In an interview with filmmaker Errol Morris, Trump explained his own interpretation of the film's themes, saying "You learn in 'Kane' maybe wealth isn't everything, because he had the wealth but he didn't have the happiness. In real life I believe that wealth does in fact isolate you from other people. It's a protective mechanism — you have your guard up much more so [than] if you didn't have wealth...Perhaps I can understand that."[110]
Pre-release controversy
[edit]
To ensure that Hearst's life's influence on Citizen Kane was a secret, Welles limited access to dailies and managed the film's publicity. A December 1940 feature story in Stage magazine compared the film's narrative to Faust and made no mention of Hearst.[20]: 111
The film was scheduled to premiere at RKO's flagship theater Radio City Music Hall on February 14, but in early January 1941 Welles was not finished with post-production work and told RKO that it still needed its musical score.[21]: 205 Writers for national magazines had early deadlines and so a rough cut was previewed for a select few on January 3, 1941[20]: 111 for such magazines as Life, Look and Redbook. Gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (an arch-rival of Louella Parsons, the Hollywood correspondent for Hearst papers) showed up to the screening uninvited. Most of the critics at the preview said that they liked the film and gave it good advanced reviews. Hopper wrote negatively about it, calling the film a "vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man" and criticizing its corny writing and old fashioned photography.[21]: 205
Friday magazine ran an article drawing point-by-point comparisons between Kane and Hearst and documented how Welles had led on Parsons.[20]: 111 Up until this Welles had been friendly with Parsons. The magazine quoted Welles as saying that he could not understand why she was so nice to him and that she should "wait until the woman finds out that the picture's about her boss." Welles immediately denied making the statement and the editor of Friday admitted that it might be false. Welles apologized to Parsons and assured her that he had never made that remark.[21]: 205
Shortly after Friday's article, Hearst sent Parsons an angry letter complaining that he had learned about Citizen Kane from Hopper and not her. The incident made a fool of Parsons and compelled her to start attacking Welles and the film. Parsons demanded a private screening of the film and personally threatened Schaefer on Hearst's behalf, first with a lawsuit and then with a vague threat of consequences for everyone in Hollywood. On January 10 Parsons and two lawyers working for Hearst were given a private screening of the film.[21]: 206 James G. Stewart was present at the screening and said that she walked out of the film.[40]: 11
Soon after, Parsons called Schaefer and threatened RKO with a lawsuit if they released Kane.[20]: 111 She also contacted the management of Radio City Music Hall and demanded that they should not screen it.[21]: 206 The next day, the front page headline in Daily Variety read, "HEARST BANS RKO FROM PAPERS."[111] Hearst began this ban by suppressing promotion of RKO's Kitty Foyle,[73]: 94 but in two weeks the ban was lifted for everything except Kane.[20]: 111
When Schaefer did not submit to Parsons she called other studio heads and made more threats on behalf of Hearst to expose the private lives of people throughout the entire film industry.[21]: 206 Welles was then threatened with an exposé about his romance with the married actress Dolores del Río, who wanted the affair kept secret until her divorce was finalized.[21]: 207 In a statement to journalists Welles denied that the film was about Hearst. Hearst began preparing an injunction against the film for libel and invasion of privacy, but Welles's lawyer told him that he doubted Hearst would proceed due to the negative publicity and required testimony that an injunction would bring.[21]: 209
The Hollywood Reporter ran a front-page story on January 13 that Hearst papers were about to run a series of editorials attacking Hollywood's practice of hiring refugees and immigrants for jobs that could be done by Americans. The goal was to put pressure on the other studios to force RKO to shelve Kane.[20]: 111 Many of those immigrants had fled Europe after the rise of fascism and feared losing the haven of the United States.[21]: 209 Soon afterwards, Schaefer was approached by Nicholas Schenck, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's parent company, with an offer on the behalf of Louis B. Mayer and other Hollywood executives to RKO Pictures of $805,000 to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative.[20]: 111–112 [112]
Once RKO's legal team reassured Schaefer, the studio announced on January 21 that Kane would be released as scheduled, and with one of the largest promotional campaigns in the studio's history. Schaefer brought Welles to New York City for a private screening of the film with the New York corporate heads of the studios and their lawyers.[20]: 112 There was no objection to its release provided that certain changes, including the removal or softening of specific references that might offend Hearst, were made.[20]: 112–113 Welles agreed and cut the running time from 122 minutes to 119 minutes. The cuts satisfied the corporate lawyers.[20]: 113
Trailer
[edit]
Main article: Citizen Kane trailer
Now that the film was completed, RKO had to sell it to moviegoers. The usual method was for a studio film editor to compile a montage of highlights for a coming-attractions trailer, which would be shown to audiences shortly before the film came to their local theater. The trailer for Citizen Kane was something special, and like the feature itself was radically different from the general run. It was really a pioneer of what is now known as a teaser trailer, which piqued viewers' curiosity about the film without actually revealing any of the content.
Written and directed by Welles at Toland's suggestion, the Citizen Kane trailer does not feature a single second of footage of the actual film itself, but acts as a wholly original, tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-documentary piece on the film's production.[37]: 230 Filmed at the same time as Citizen Kane itself, it offers the only existing behind-the-scenes footage of the film. The trailer, shot by staff cameraman Harry Wild instead of Toland, follows an unseen Welles as he provides narration for a tour around the film set, introductions to the film's core cast members, and a brief overview of Kane's character.[22]: 360 The trailer also contains a number of trick shots, including one of Everett Sloane appearing at first to be running into the camera, which turns out to be the reflection of the camera in a mirror.[113]
At the time, it was almost unprecedented for a film trailer to not actually feature anything of the film itself; and while Citizen Kane is frequently cited as a groundbreaking, influential film, Simon Callow argues its trailer was no less original in its approach. Callow writes that it has "great playful charm ... it is a miniature documentary, almost an introduction to the cinema ... Teasing, charming, completely original, it is a sort of conjuring trick: Without his face appearing once on the screen, Welles entirely dominates its five [sic] minutes' duration."[24]: 558–9
Release
[edit]
Radio City Music Hall's management refused to screen Citizen Kane for its premiere. A possible factor was Parsons's threat that The American Weekly would run a defamatory story on the grandfather of major RKO stockholder Nelson Rockefeller.[20]: 115 Other exhibitors feared being sued for libel by Hearst and refused to show the film.[21]: 216 In March Welles threatened the RKO board of governors with a lawsuit if they did not release the film. Schaefer stood by Welles and opposed the board of governors.[21]: 210 When RKO still delayed the film's release Welles offered to buy the film for $1 million and the studio finally agreed to release the film on May 1.[21]: 215
Schaefer managed to book a few theaters willing to show the film. Hearst papers refused to accept advertising.[20]: 115 RKO's publicity advertisements for the film erroneously promoted it as a love story.[21]: 217
Kane opened at the RKO Palace Theatre on Broadway in New York on May 1, 1941,[13] in Chicago on May 6, and in Los Angeles on May 8.[20]: 115 Welles said that at the Chicago premiere that he attended the theater was almost empty.[21]: 216
Response at the time of release
[edit]
Critical reviews fell into three types: great, mixed, and negative. Most were in the first category. The day following the premiere of Citizen Kane, The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote that "it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood... Count on Mr. Welles: he doesn't do things by halves. ... Upon the screen he discovered an area large enough for his expansive whims to have free play. And the consequence is that he has made a picture of tremendous and overpowering scope, not in physical extent so much as in its rapid and graphic rotation of thoughts. Mr. Welles has put upon the screen a motion picture that really moves".[114]
The Washington Post called it "one of the most important films in the history" of filmmaking.[115] The Washington Evening Star said Welles was a genius who created "a superbly dramatic biography of another genius" and "a picture that is revolutionary".[116] New York Daily News critic Kate Cameron called it "one of the most interesting and technically superior films that has ever come out of a Hollywood studio".[117] New York World-Telegram critic William Boehnel said that the film was "staggering and belongs at once among the greatest screen achievements".[118] Time magazine wrote that "it has found important new techniques in picture-making and story-telling."[21]: 211 Life magazine's review said that "few movies have ever come from Hollywood with such powerful narrative, such original technique, such exciting photography."[21]: 211 John C. Mosher of The New Yorker called the film's style "like fresh air" and raved "Something new has come to the movie world at last."[119]: 68 Anthony Bower of The Nation called it "brilliant" and praised the cinematography and performances by Welles, Comingore and Cotten.[120] John O'Hara's Newsweek review called it the best picture he'd ever seen and said Welles was "the best actor in the history of acting."[21]: 211 Welles called O'Hara's review "the greatest review that anybody ever had."[37]: 100
In the UK C. A. Lejeune of The Observer called it "The most exciting film that has come out of Hollywood in twenty-five years"[121] and Dilys Powell of The Sunday Times said the film's style was made "with the ease and boldness and resource of one who controls and is not controlled by his medium."[122]: 63 Edward Tangye Lean of Horizon praised the film's technical style, calling it "perhaps a decade ahead of its contemporaries."[123][k]
Other reviews were mixed. Edwin Schallert of the Los Angeles Times said it was brilliant and skillful at times, but had an ending that "rather fizzled".[125] The Chicago Tribune called the film interesting and different but "its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value".[126] Otis Ferguson of The New Republic said it was "the boldest free-hand stroke in major screen production since Griffith and Bitzer were running wild to unshackle the camera", but also criticized its style, calling it a "retrogression in film technique" and stating that "it holds no great place" in film history.[127] Ferguson reacted to some of the film's celebrated visual techniques by calling them "just willful dabbling" and "the old shell game." In a rare film review, filmmaker Erich von Stroheim criticized the film's story and non-linear structure, but praised the technical style and performances, and wrote "Whatever the truth may be about it, Citizen Kane is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Welles!"[128]
Some prominent critics wrote negative reviews. None of them dismissed the film as being altogether bad, noting the film's undeniable technical effects, but they did find fault with the narrative. Eileen Creelman of The New York Sun called it "a cold picture, unemotional, a puzzle rather than a drama".[35]: 178 In his 1941 review for Sur, Jorge Luis Borges famously called the film "a labyrinth with no center" and predicted that its legacy would be a film "whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again."[129] The Argus Weekend Magazine critic Erle Cox called the film "amazing" but thought that Welles's break with Hollywood traditions was "overdone".[130] Tatler's James Agate called it "the well-intentioned, muddled, amateurish thing one expects from high-brows";[131] he admitted that it was "a quite good film" but insisted that it "tries to run the psychological essay in harness with your detective thriller, and doesn't quite succeed."[132] Other people who disliked the film were W. H. Auden[37]: 98 and James Agee.[37]: 99 After watching the film on January 29, 1942, future British star Kenneth Williams, then aged 15, curtly described the film in his first diary as "boshey rot".[133]
Reception from the public
[edit]
The film did well in cities and larger towns, but it fared poorly in more remote areas. RKO still had problems getting exhibitors to show the film. For example, one chain controlling more than 500 theaters got Welles's film as part of a package but refused to play it, reportedly out of fear of Hearst.[20]: 117 Hearst's disruption of the film's release damaged its box office performance and, as a result, it lost $160,000 during its initial run.[134]: 164 [135] The film earned $23,878 during its first week in New York. By the ninth week it only made $7,279. Overall it lost money in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., but made a profit in Seattle.[21]: 216
Moviegoers who saw the picture generally spread negative word of mouth among their neighbors, and exhibitors in the United States and Canada weren't shy about voicing their reactions, as published in Motion Picture Herald. A few theater owners were discerning, recognizing the startling new techniques but conceding bad box office: "Is likely to make your auditorium resound from vacuousness like the giant stone walls in Kane's incredible castle. Box office or no box office, this unusual film is without doubt a step toward elevating the artistic plane of the motion picture in general."[136] A college-town exhibitor reported, "I thought it was fine, as did the majority of people who attended the performances. However, there were some who either did not like it or did not get it. Business was just average."[137] "Don't try to tell me Orson Welles isn't a genius; herein he has produced a mighty fine picture, and herewith he has established for me the lowest gross that I have ever, ever experienced. I would have sworn that such ridiculous receipts were utterly impossible. If you cater to film connoisseurs, this picture is made for you. But me, I hurt all over."[138] Others were more blunt: "Nobody liked this and said so. We took in just enough to pay for it so considered ourselves very lucky."[139] "One day after showing this we still feel hesitant about walking abroad without an escort. Half of the few dozen that paid to see this masterpiece walked out, and the other half remained only to think up new dirty cracks to cast in our direction on the way out."[140] "High priced picture. But I made a little money on my help. They took off three days because they were afraid of being all alone in the theatre."[141] "You can stand in front of a mirror and call yourself 'sucker' when you play this one. It does not have one redeeming feature. It will not draw; those that do come will not know what it is all about."[142] A Minnesota exhibitor summed up the situation for rural areas: "My patrons still don't know what it was all about. Too long and too deep. No box office value to small towns."[143]
Hearst's response
[edit]
Hearing about Citizen Kane enraged Hearst so much that he banned any advertising, reviewing, or mentioning of it in his papers, and had his journalists libel Welles.[112] Welles used Hearst's opposition as a pretext for previewing the film in several opinion-making screenings in Los Angeles, lobbying for its artistic worth against the hostile campaign that Hearst was waging.[112] A special press screening took place in early March. Henry Luce was in attendance and reportedly wanted to buy the film from RKO for $1 million to distribute it himself. The reviews for this screening were positive. A Hollywood Review headline read, "Mr. Genius Comes Through; 'Kane' Astonishing Picture". The Motion Picture Herald reported about the screening and Hearst's intention to sue RKO. Time magazine wrote that "The objection of Mr. Hearst, who founded a publishing empire on sensationalism, is ironic. For to most of the several hundred people who have seen the film at private screenings, Citizen Kane is the most sensational product of the U.S. movie industry." A second press screening occurred in April.[73]: 94
When Schaefer rejected Hearst's offer to suppress the film, Hearst banned every newspaper and station in his media conglomerate from reviewing—or even mentioning—the film. He also had many movie theaters ban it, and many did not show it through fear of being socially exposed by his massive newspaper empire.[144] The Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for the film's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable. Nevertheless, the film's commercial performance fell short of its creators' expectations.[92] Hearst's biographer David Nasaw points out that Hearst's actions were not the only reason Kane failed, however: the innovations Welles made with narrative, as well as the dark message at the heart of the film (that the pursuit of success is ultimately futile) meant that a popular audience could not appreciate its merits.[145]: 572–573
Hearst's attacks against Welles went beyond attempting to suppress the film. Welles said that while he was on his post-filming lecture tour a police detective approached him at a restaurant and advised him not to go back to his hotel. A 14-year-old girl had reportedly been hidden in the closet of his room, and two photographers were waiting for him to walk in. Knowing he would be jailed after the resulting publicity, Welles did not return to the hotel but waited until the train left town the following morning. "But that wasn't Hearst," Welles said, "that was a hatchet man from the local Hearst paper who thought he would advance himself by doing it."[22]: 85–86
In March 1941, Welles directed a Broadway version of Richard Wright's Native Son (and, for luck, used a "Rosebud" sled as a prop). Native Son received positive reviews, but Hearst-owned papers used the opportunity to attack Welles as a communist.[21]: 213 The Hearst papers vociferously attacked Welles after his April 1941 radio play, "His Honor, the Mayor",[146] produced for The Free Company radio series on CBS.[100]: 113 [147]
Welles described his chance encounter with Hearst in an elevator at the Fairmont Hotel on the night Citizen Kane opened in San Francisco. Hearst and Welles's father were acquaintances, so Welles introduced himself and asked Hearst if he would like to come to the opening. Hearst did not respond. "As he was getting off at his floor, I said, 'Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.' No reply", recalled Welles. "And Kane would have, you know. That was his style—just as he finished Jed Leland's bad review of Susan as an opera singer."[22]: 49–50 [148]
In 1945, Hearst journalist Robert Shaw wrote that the film got "a full tide of insensate fury" from Hearst papers, "then it ebbed suddenly. With one brain cell working, the chief realized that such hysterical barking by the trained seals would attract too much attention to the picture. But to this day the name of Orson Welles is on the official son-of-a-bitch list of every Hearst newspaper".[119]: 102
Despite Hearst's attempts to destroy the film, since 1941 references to his life and career have usually included a reference to Citizen Kane, such as the headline 'Son of Citizen Kane Dies' for the obituary of Hearst's son.[149] In 2012, the Hearst estate agreed to screen the film at Hearst Castle in San Simeon, breaking Hearst's ban on the film.[148]
Contemporary response
[edit]
Modern critics have given Citizen Kane an even more positive response. Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 99% of 125 critics gave the film a positive review, with an average rating of 9.70/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Orson Welles's epic tale of a publishing tycoon's rise and fall is entertaining, poignant, and inventive in its storytelling, earning its reputation as a landmark achievement in film."[150] In April 2021, it was noted that the addition of an 80-year-old negative review from the Chicago Tribune reduced the film's rating from 100% to 99% on the site; Citizen Kane held its 100% rating until early 2021.[151] On Metacritic, however, the film still has a rare weighted average score of 100 out of 100 based on 19 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[152]
Accolades
[edit]
Award Category Nominee(s) Result Academy Awards[153] Outstanding Motion Picture Mercury Nominated Best Director Orson Welles Nominated Best Actor Nominated Best Original Screenplay Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles Won Best Art Direction–Interior Decoration – Black-and-White Perry Ferguson, Van Nest Polglase, Al Fields and Darrell Silvera Nominated Best Cinematography – Black-and-White Gregg Toland Nominated Best Film Editing Robert Wise Nominated Best Scoring of a Dramatic Picture Bernard Herrmann Nominated Best Sound Recording John Aalberg Nominated DVD Exclusive Awards Best Audio Commentary Roger Ebert Won National Board of Review Awards[154][155] Best Film Won Top Ten Films Won Best Acting George Coulouris Won Orson Welles Won National Film Preservation Board National Film Registry Inducted New York Film Critics Circle Awards[156] Best Film Won Best Director Orson Welles Nominated Best Actor Nominated Online Film & Television Association Awards Hall of Fame – Motion Picture Won Online Film Critics Society Awards Best Overall DVD Nominated Satellite Awards Best Classic DVD Citizen Kane: Ultimate Collector's Edition Nominated Saturn Awards Best DVD/Blu-Ray Special Edition Release Citizen Kane: 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition Nominated Village Voice Film Poll Best Film of the Century Won
It was widely believed the film would win most of its Academy Award nominations, but it received only the award for Best Original Screenplay. Variety reported that block voting by screen extras deprived Citizen Kane of Best Picture and Best Actor, and similar prejudices were likely to have been responsible for the film receiving no technical awards.[20]: 117 [157]
Legacy
[edit]
Main article: Legacy of Citizen Kane
Citizen Kane was the only film made under Welles's original contract with RKO Pictures, which gave him complete creative control.[21]: 223 Welles's new business manager and attorney permitted the contract to lapse. In July 1941,[158][159] Welles reluctantly signed a new and less favorable deal with RKO[21]: 223 under which he produced and directed The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), produced Journey into Fear (1943), and began It's All True, a film he agreed to do without payment. In the new contract Welles was an employee of the studio[160] and lost the right to final cut, which later allowed RKO to modify and re-cut The Magnificent Ambersons over his objections.[21]: 223 In June 1942, Schaefer resigned the presidency of RKO Pictures and Welles's contract was terminated by his successor.[58]
The European release of Kane was delayed until after World War II, premiering in Paris in 1946. Initial reception by French critics was influenced by negative views from Jean-Paul Sartre and Georges Sadoul, who criticized Hollywood's cultural sophistication and the film's nostalgic use of flashbacks. However, critic André Bazin delivered a transformative speech in 1946 that shifted public opinion. Bazin praised the film for its innovative use of mise-en-scène and deep focus cinematography, advocating for a filmic realism that allows audiences to engage more actively with the narrative. Bazin's essays, especially "The Technique of Citizen Kane," played a crucial role in enhancing the film's reputation, arguing it revolutionized film language and aesthetics. His defense of "Citizen Kane" as a work of art influenced other critics and contributed to a broader re-evaluation of the film in Europe and the United States.[161]: 37
In the U.S., the film was initially neglected until it began appearing on television in the 1950s and was re-released in theaters. American film critic Andrew Sarris was significant in reviving its reputation, describing it as a profoundly influential American film. Over the decades, "Citizen Kane" has been consistently ranked highly in critical surveys and polls, often cited as the greatest film ever made.[5]
The film's narrative structure, cinematography, and themes have influenced countless filmmakers and films worldwide, asserting its place as a cornerstone in the history of cinema. Notable film directors and critics have acknowledged its impact on their work and the broader film landscape, underscoring its enduring legacy in both theory and practice.[162]
Rights and home media
[edit]
The composited camera negative of Citizen Kane is believed to be lost forever. The most commonly-reported explanation is that it was destroyed in a New Jersey film laboratory fire in the 1970s. However, in 2021, Nicolas Falacci revealed that he had been told "the real story" by a colleague, when he was one of two employees in the film restoration lab which assembled the 1991 "restoration" from the best available elements. Falacci noted that throughout the process he had daily visits in 1990-91 from an unnamed "older RKO executive showing up every day – nervous and sweating". According to Falacci's colleague, this elderly man was keen to cover up a clerical error he had made decades earlier when in charge of the studio's inventory, which had resulted in the original camera negatives being sent to a silver reclamation plant, destroying the nitrate film to extract its valuable silver content. Falacci's account is impossible to verify, but it would have been fully in keeping with industry standard practice for many decades, which was to destroy prints and negatives of countless older films deemed non-commercially viable, to extract the silver.[163]
Subsequent prints were derived from a master positive (a fine-grain preservation element) made in the 1940s and originally intended for use in overseas distribution.[164] Modern techniques were used to produce a pristine print for a 50th Anniversary theatrical reissue in 1991 which Paramount Pictures released for then-owner Turner Broadcasting System,[165] which earned $1.6 million in North America[166] and $1.8 million worldwide.[3]
In 1955, RKO sold the American television rights to its film library, including Citizen Kane, to C&C Television Corp.[167] In 1960, television rights to the pre-1959 RKO's live-action library were acquired by United Artists. RKO kept the non-broadcast television rights to its library.[168]
In 1976, when home video was in its infancy, entrepreneur Snuff Garrett bought cassette rights to the RKO library for what United Press International termed "a pittance". In 1978 The Nostalgia Merchant released the film through Media Home Entertainment. By 1980 the 800-title library of The Nostalgia Merchant was earning $2.3 million a year. "Nobody wanted cassettes four years ago," Garrett told UPI. "It wasn't the first time people called me crazy. It was a hobby with me which became big business."[169] RKO Home Video released the film on VHS and Betamax in 1985.[170]
On December 3, 1984, The Criterion Collection released the film as its first LaserDisc.[171] It was made from a fine grain master positive provided by the UCLA Film and Television Archive.[172] When told about the then-new concept of having an audio commentary on the disc, Welles was skeptical but said "theoretically, that's good for teaching movies, so long as they don't talk nonsense."[37]: 283 In 1992 Criterion released a new 50th Anniversary Edition LaserDisc. This version had an improved transfer and additional special features, including the documentary The Legacy of Citizen Kane and Welles's early short The Hearts of Age.[173]
Turner Broadcasting System acquired broadcast television rights to the RKO library in 1986[174] and the full worldwide rights to the library in 1987.[175] The RKO Home Video unit was reorganized into Turner Home Entertainment that year.[176] In 1991 Turner released a 50th Anniversary Edition on VHS and as a collector's edition that includes the film, the documentary Reflections On Citizen Kane, Harlan Lebo's 50th anniversary album, a poster and a copy of the original script.[177] In 1996, Time Warner acquired Turner and Warner Home Video absorbed Turner Home Entertainment.[178] In 2011, Time Warner's Warner Bros. unit had distribution rights for the film.[179]
In 2001, Warner Home Video released a 60th Anniversary Collectors Edition DVD. The two-disc DVD included feature-length commentaries by Roger Ebert and Peter Bogdanovich, as well as a second DVD with the feature length documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1999). It was simultaneously released on VHS.[180][181] The DVD was criticized for being "too bright, too clean; the dirt and grime had been cleared away, but so had a good deal of the texture, the depth, and the sense of film grain."[182]
In 2003, Welles's daughter Beatrice Welles sued Turner Entertainment, claiming the Welles estate is the legal copyright holder of the film. She claimed that Welles's deal to terminate his contracts with RKO meant that Turner's copyright of the film was null and void. She also claimed that the estate of Orson Welles was owed 20% of the film's profits if her copyright claim was not upheld. In 2007 she was allowed to proceed with the lawsuit, overturning the 2004 decision in favor of Turner Entertainment on the issue of video rights.[183]
In 2011, it was released on Blu-ray and DVD in a 70th Anniversary Edition.[184] The San Francisco Chronicle called it "the Blu-ray release of the year."[185] Supplements included everything available on the 2001 Warner Home Video release, including The Battle Over Citizen Kane DVD. A 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition added a third DVD with RKO 281 (1999), an award winning TV movie about the making of the film. Its packaging extras included a hardcover book and a folio containing mini reproductions of the original souvenir program, lobby cards, and production memos and correspondence.[186] The transfer for the US releases were scanned as 4K resolution from three different 35mm prints and rectified the quality issues of the 2001 DVD.[182] The rest of the world continued to receive home video releases based on the older transfer. This was partially rectified in 2016 with the release of the 75th Anniversary Edition in both the UK and US, which was a straight repackaging of the main disc from the 70th Anniversary Edition.[187][188]
On August 11, 2021 Criterion announced their first 4K Ultra HD releases, a six-film slate, would include Citizen Kane. Criterion indicated each title was to be available in a combo pack including a 4K UHD disc of the feature film as well as the film and special features on the companion Blu-rays.[189] Citizen Kane was released on November 23, 2021 by the collection as a 4K and 3 Blu-ray disc package. However, the release was recalled because at the half-hour mark on the regular blu-ray, the contrast fell sharply, which resulted in a much darker image compared to what was supposed to occur.[190] However this issue does not apply to the 4K version itself.
Colorization controversy
[edit]
In the 1980s, Citizen Kane became a catalyst in the controversy over the colorization of black-and-white films. One proponent of film colorization was Ted Turner,[191] whose Turner Entertainment Company owned the RKO library.[192] A Turner Entertainment spokesperson initially stated that Citizen Kane would not be colorized,[193] but in July 1988 Turner said, "Citizen Kane? I'm thinking of colorizing it."[194] In early 1989 it was reported that two companies were producing color tests for Turner Entertainment. Criticism increased when filmmaker Henry Jaglom stated that shortly before his death Welles had implored him "don't let Ted Turner deface my movie with his crayons."[195]
In February 1989, Turner Entertainment President Roger Mayer announced that work to colorize the film had been stopped due to provisions in Welles's 1939 contract with RKO that "could be read to prohibit colorization without permission of the Welles estate."[196] Mayer added that Welles's contract was "quite unusual" and "other contracts we have checked out are not like this at all."[197] Turner had only colorized the final reel of the film before abandoning the project. In 1991 one minute of the colorized test footage was included in the BBC Arena documentary The Complete Citizen Kane.[l][198]
The colorization controversy was a factor in the passage of the National Film Preservation Act in 1988 which created the National Film Registry the following year. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings reported that "one major reason for doing this is to require people like the broadcaster Ted Turner, who's been adding color to some movies and re-editing others for television, to put notices on those versions saying that the movies have been altered".[199]
Bibliography
[edit]
Notes
[edit]
References
[edit]
Database
[edit]
Official website
Citizen Kane at AllMovie
Citizen Kane at the AFI Catalog of Feature Films
Citizen Kane at IMDb
Citizen Kane at Metacritic
Citizen Kane at Rotten Tomatoes
Citizen Kane at the TCM Movie Database
Citizen Kane at Cinema Belgica
Other
[edit] | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 46 | https://www.whattothinkaboutart.com/oddsandends/what-to-think-about-citizen-kane-on-first-viewing-a-dialogue | en | What to Think About Citizen Kane on First Viewing: A Dialogue — What to Think About Art | http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d16661b48016b0001035975/5d6ac365b91b0c0001c9ca4d/5ffb5ec3576d293b16e0f2e3/1612540331868/220px-Citizen_Kane_poster%2C_1941_%28Style_B%2C_unrestored%29.jpg?format=1500w | http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d16661b48016b0001035975/5d6ac365b91b0c0001c9ca4d/5ffb5ec3576d293b16e0f2e3/1612540331868/220px-Citizen_Kane_poster%2C_1941_%28Style_B%2C_unrestored%29.jpg?format=1500w | [
"https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5d16661b48016b0001035975/1562112298666-RL3U4O73C3NUJRWZTJGF/What+to+Think+About+Art-logo+%281%29.png",
"https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5d16661b48016b0001035975/1562112298666-RL3U4O73C3NUJRWZTJGF/What+to+Think+About+Art-logo+%281%29.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"What to Think About Art"
] | 2021-01-10T16:04:14-05:00 | I had never seen Citizen Kane. Guest blogger my spouse joins me to talk about film criticism and the canon. | en | https://assets.squarespace.com/universal/default-favicon.ico | What to Think About Art | https://www.whattothinkaboutart.com/oddsandends/what-to-think-about-citizen-kane-on-first-viewing-a-dialogue | What to Think About Art: This post was inspired not by my love of film but by a memory that came back to me like Proust’s madeleine. I was watching Lovecraft Country and there’s a scene where one of the characters goes back to 1920s Paris to sing and dance in Josephine Baker’s jazz club. And at the thought of black jazz musicians in Paris, my mind immediately flew to...Boston University, January of 2010.
I was in graduate school for music composition and I had one of those old white professors who knows what is best. So the class was about Stravinsky, but there was a lot of table-setting about Stravinsky’s world, and at one point we were talking about how jazz was popular in Paris when Stravinsky lived there, and Professor said (and I do quote):
“Now you know, a lot of great American jazz musicians went to Paris, because they were appreciated there and it was less racist. And the greatest of these jazz musicians was?”
He paused then, inviting us to respond, but of course implying that jazz musicians could be ranked, and that he knew the rankings, and could control them.
We don’t need to dwell on this guy and the racism within that statement. But let’s say that if we asked him to give us a list of the best “classical musicians” of all time, he would say (1) the term “classical” is so broad as to be an offensive stereotype of Western musical forms, (2) “musicians” aren’t worth ranking, so let’s interpret it as composers, and (3) Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Mozart, Schoenberg, then everybody else.
Now, I’m not a scholar of jazz history; I am a fan and I know a little bit. But I knew that there was almost no chance I’d get the answer to this question right, because it wasn’t designed to have an obvious answer, it was designed to exercise control over the classroom by showing that there were right answers and wrong answers to such questions, and only Professor Guy had the right answers.
“Dexter Morgan!” I shouted.
“No, but that’s a good guess.”
Total silence from the rest of the class. (This was a graduate seminar in Stravinsky at a very classically-oriented conservatory program. One of my inspirations for leaving the school was a conversation I had with one of my classmates in which I referenced Joe Biden, then Vice President, and the person had no idea who he was and assumed he was an avant-garde composer. This group - not great on jazz history either. The Professor knew this, of course, and it was supremely frustrating to him to have a student in his class whose knowledge base approached or exceeded his in breadth. We did not get along. Another time, he called me into his office to discuss a paper of mine that he hated, and my mother had just been in a car accident and I was not in the mood, and we screamed at each other. I later apologized.)
“Eric Dolphy!” I tried again.
“Uh, no,” he said, this time a little startled. I’m not sure whether he was surprised at my knowledge or perhaps he didn’t know who Eric Dolphy was.
“Wait, are we talking musicians who lived there permanently?” I asked. “Because lots of them toured. I mean, Miles Davis. Jeez. Miles Davis.”
“No, no, no” he said, waving at me to be quiet. “_______. The greatest was Josephine Baker.”
Now, I’m not a Josephine Baker scholar. But I think it’s questionable to call her a singer, let alone a “jazz musician.” Sort of like calling Freddie Mercury a pianist. Or like calling Sammy Davis Jr. a singer. But whatever.
The reason I remember this story from time to time is it embodies for me the frustration of being told what to think about art.
The title of this blog was always intended to be tongue-in-cheek. I don’t intend to say that my thoughts on art are definitive or even correct--to the contrary, I intentionally mix in so much personal anecdote to some of my critical essays that it’s impossible to even really “agree” with me (I think). That’s part of my critical ethos - I don’t believe there’s any definitive take on a piece of art (sorry JK Rowling and Kathleen Stock, you suck), there’s just whatever that art inspires in its audience, and that’s enormously contingent on the subjective personal experiences of the audience and even the context of the work within changing ideologies and the progression of time.
That said, one of the reasons I do the blog is that the greatest pleasures from art, for me at least, are in being part of a dialogue. When we all appreciate the same piece of art, and we agree that it’s well made and “important” or part of the canon for whatever reason, then we can all approach it from our unique personal and historical contexts and be part of a discourse. The discourse helps us to learn about each other and the human experience as much as, sometimes more than, the art itself.
My spouse is no stranger to this approach - she has a PhD in literature. She spent a solid decade reading hundreds of years’ worth of criticism of a relatively small number of works written eight hundred years ago.
Perhaps more importantly for today, one of the foundational experiences in our early relationship was the class we took together in college on the films of Alfred Hitchcock. (Also foundational for me in that it’s the only film class I ever took, and nearly the entire source of my knowledge on filmmaking technique; I know what an “establishing shot” is, for instance, because of that class.)
The Hitchcock class was another old-white-professor-who-knows-best class. He was fond of saying things like “and of course, the greatest and most beautiful of all movie stars was Grace Kelly. Or should I say, [wink], Princess Grace of Monaco.” He and Professor Stravinsky Guy would have gotten along, if not for the fact that all such professors fucking hate each other.
Anyway, Professor Hitchcock Guy declared that Vertigo was the greatest film of all time. There was no arguing with him on that point. However, he did concede that Citizen Kane should be way up there.
And that brings us to Citizen Kane (a good 20,000 words before Proust would’ve gotten there). For the entirety of my childhood and well into my adulthood, Citizen Kane was number one on the Sight and Sound critics and directors polls and all the lists of the greatest movies of all time.
That is the reason I didn’t watch it. Nobody ever told me it was an exciting, enjoyable movie. Nobody ever told me it was thought-provoking or even controversial. At least in the circles I ran, it was none of those things - it was just the greatest movie of all time.
So I never saw Citizen Kane. I also have not read Ulysses or, until recently and only in the abridged graphic novel form, In Search of Lost Time.
(And I really resisted Stravinsky, too, because of that professor. My resistance to Stravinsky inspired what I believe to be the best joke I ever composed. I was in an elevator with a classmate after an hour of Professor Stravinsky Guy, and I said “hey, you know what’s weird about this Stravinsky class? All this talk about Stravinsky and we never talk about his greatest accomplishment.”
“What’s that,” asked my classmate, genuinely perplexed.
“Well, Stravinsky invented the vagina. Before that, it was all buttsex.”
This is the point where I’d like to say that the elevator doors opened and I walked out. In fact the elevator was very slow. The classmate looked at me blankly. “Wait, what? He invented what?”
And so I had to repeat the joke. Slowly. After I repeated it, and we stood in silence for a good five seconds, the elevator doors opened. And then I did walk out and did not turn around. I turned a corner and hid in a research carrel and laughed for ten minutes. The classmate later told me he continued to be very confused for a while, but on reflection found it amusing.)
A few years ago, Vertigo supplanted Citizen Kane on Sight and Sound. Around the same time, I left music school and did other things with my life, and now I don’t have any reason to give a fuck about what anyone wants me to think about art, and I have this blog to articulate my own thoughts about art and (usually) pretend I’m part of a dialogue.
And so when I saw that scene in Lovecraft Country where a character travels through time to 1920s Paris, I thought “I should finally watch Citizen Kane.”
And then I thought “I should watch it with my spouse and then we could do a dialogue about it for the blog.” Which brings us to today.
Spouse: For the record, I got an A in that Hitchcock class because I enjoy and am good at playing the game of film criticism in the style of the old white guy. Like, I get it and I enjoy demonstrating that I get it. Later, when I would go on to teach literature classes, I realized that I did NOT have to give up my affinity for old white guy art criticism in order to then examine it and say, “this is not the only way to interpret this art thing, but it is important to understand the extent to which its value system has dominated everything in western art for centuries.”
What I hate - HATE - about many academic debates is the framing that suggests that something is being sacrificed when we say “hey, the literary canon as we know it has been dominated by white male creators, and let’s maybe try and correct for that by asking what has been missed.” Guys, I’m not even saying Hitchcock is overrated; I’m saying I don’t buy that he’s somehow unquestionably the greatest. I still grew up on Hitchcock movies and think many of them are astonishing achievements. I could still probably write a paper that Professor Grace-Kelly-Is-The-Hottest would give me an A on, and I would not even need to write anything disingenuous in it. At the same time, I think it would be irresponsible of me to teach that same course in that same way. I see no need to perpetuate the hegemony of established classics; the patriarchy is doing a perfectly fine job of that on its own.
Having said that, I am happy to listen to someone who wants to tell me about the greatness of Citizen Kane on its own merits, and a couple of years ago I was a mom of a toddler with untreated postpartum depression and crushing pessimism about my future as an academic, and I stumbled upon a podcast that made me feel, briefly, like there might be a purpose out there for me. On this podcast, which I absolutely do not want to drag in any way, two middle-aged guys dissect “great films” at even greater length. Without going into my brief love affair with this podcast and subsequent disillusionment, I will say that these guys do seem to understand their guy-ness to some extent. They acknowledge that the vast majority of so-called “great” films are directed by men, feature men as protagonists, are defined by the male gaze, etc. But, you know, they like those films because they are middle aged guys, and they just wanna make their podcast! And sometimes, I just wanted to listen to it and not care that it was yet another set of footprints on an extremely well trodden path. These movies were easy to like, and they made me like them more with the way they dove into them. They did for Die Hard what I wanted to do for Dante’s Divine Comedy in my own teaching.
One time, after (excitedly!) listening to a nearly-four-hour analysis of Lawrence of Arabia, I was actually moved to Facebook-message the podcast creators saying “I really enjoyed this, but at the same time it made me deeply sad that there are no epic films like this about complex women.” The response I got (I got a response!) was like “Hey, I hear you and it sucks. I wish that weren’t the way of the world. Hope things change for the better!” They are not here to solve the patriarchy, they’re just some dudes who like talking about movies, and they were raised in the great-films-of-all-time stew.
And you know what, so was I, and for a while I loved that podcast, and during the time in which I loved that podcast, those dudes convinced me that I needed to watch Citizen Kane, and I did. And you know what, it was a great experience and I learned a lot and it’s a great film. So yeah, I am ready to get an A on this blog thing, let’s do it.
That was a major difference between us even in college. You were always quite motivated to get an A.
Correction: I enjoyed the work involved in getting an A. See above: I liked Hitchcock movies.
Sure...I was always convinced I could get an A, but there were times that I felt the professor or the material was really shitty and while I wanted the institutional affirmation of my talent I couldn’t bring myself to dignify authority figures with the effort required. I don’t like to kiss the ring.
Except when it comes to your mother.
[We watched Citizen Kane.]
Ok, well I agree it has little in common with Deadwood. I am surprised that it was not a sprawling, “this man is America” historical epic. I guess that, knowing it was about William Randolph Hearst, a man who was arguably the premier journalist in America from Reconstruction to World War II, I just assumed. Also I’d seen the shots of him giving the speech with his face in the background. But in the end it’s really about how despite his pretensions and his proximity to history he ends up pathetic and unknowable.
Granted there was no way I was going to come out of this viewing agreeing I’d just seen the greatest movie of all time. But I am thinking that its supposed greatness has to do with its invention of cinematic language. Like, it’s beautifully shot, every frame has many layers of information, there are lots of interesting camera angles going on. I’m not a film historian, but if you were to tell me that Orson Welles invented all those techniques and nobody had ever done any of it before and he basically taught everyone how to make a movie, then sure, I’d believe you.
I sort of recall from the month of podcasts on Welles by the aforementioned film guys that yes, Orson Welles (though not a blast to work with!) was doing things no one had ever done with the way he shot the movie. And on this viewing, my third, I think I paid even more attention to what was going on visually than I had previously and it was, I gotta say, a great experience. It’s an extremely engaging movie to watch precisely because of the cinematic language you’re talking about. The way Kane is rarely in the frame without it being kind of jarring. Recall that his story is told through flashbacks, basically, from whatsisname Bernstein, Jed Leland, and Susan Alexander, then the butler guy who’s like “Rosebud? I’ll tell you about Rosebud if you give me a thousand bucks.” In their recollections, Kane looms large - he’s always shot from below so that he towers. When he’s foregrounded (like in that horrific scene where Leland wakes up from his drunken stupor and Kane has taken over writing his review of Alexander’s performance), he’s SO foregrounded. That scene is being told from Leland’s perspective, right? And yet he is out of focus and in the background, while Kane is maniacally typing in the foreground with his eyebrows doing all the lifting, and he occupies the entire left side of the shot. You can’t take your eyes off it.
Regarding Leland - this time, though I don’t recall thinking about it on previous viewings - do we think he is a reliable narrator of himself? That impassioned speech that he gives after Kane loses the election, when he’s basically stumbling around drunk at the Inquirer offices and telling Kane off for being a hypocrite, right before he storms off to Chicago? Do we think that’s like what really happened, or is that what Leland would like to think happened? And for that matter, do we apply that same scrutiny to the other characters who are recalling Kane to the journalist (the journalist who of course thinks his job is to figure out what Rosebud means, which is arguably jack shit)?
Well, arguably jack shit, yes. But I think there’s a more obvious, if not necessarily correct, argument that Rosebud stands for the life he lost when his family got rich and abandoned him and left him craving control and human affection and so on...but the movie also suggests that, at least in the presence of the interlocutors, he never really interrogated that. And so all we have are the impressions he left on these three people.
I think the film may also be saying that the parts of our lives that say the most about who we are happen when we’re children and appear inconsequential to those around us - and I do sympathize with that and that was a powerful statement for me, seeing as I have spent the last 20 years trying to get over being a horny neurotic asshole of a teenager (shoutout Big Mouth, again).
I just looked up Bernstein - the movie doesn’t give him a first name. It’s hard not to read that in light of Bernstein being the only Jew in the movie and the only non-WASP speaking character, and 1941 being a time when Jews weren’t really considered white people. And hard not to read it in light of him being a nebbishy little accountant.
I hadn’t thought of Leland that way, but I think you’re right. Leland’s memories are at once self-hating and self-congratulating, and surely in “real life” Leland wouldn’t have made all the right speeches at the right time. At the same time, it’s Leland’s “flashback” but he appears to remember stuff that happened while he was passed out drunk. And I was struck by other scenes where everything is larger than life - like when Kane dances around with showgirls for several minutes to celebrate - what? Hiring some really good writers? It’s not depicted as it happened or maybe even as one person remembers it happening - it’s depicted as an event that has grown in the memories of many people who were there, and talked about it for years afterward. And then as you get later in Kane’s life, and you’re seeing memories that are really just Susan’s recent memories of the two of them together, the physical actions and presentations of the characters are much more realistic (and unsympathetic), even as the scenery becomes quite ludicrous.
A lot of bigness, yes. And I actually think that watching it with this idea that it’s Bernstein, Leland, and Alexander who are telling it to us makes that aspect of it work for me more than it might otherwise; they’re telling their versions of this story, like we were saying before, and sometimes that injects grandiosity and consequence to what may in reality have been something that sounded much more mundane in real life, much less like a movie.
This is one of those movies during which you never forget you’re watching a movie, not unlike Pulp Fiction (another great film whose greatness is a bit complicated for me but which I have a hard time not thinking of constantly).
So I’m curious what your initial reaction was, watching this. Or I guess, watching it now. How did you respond to the pressure of its reputation? Was that something that affected your enjoyment of it or your critical opinion?
I went into it pretty wide-eyed. Watching it for the first time in 2017, I was like “here I am, ready for you to tell me why I should love this film; lay it on me.” This is why I went to graduate school in literature. I love close readings; I love texts that reveal themselves to you more the more you engage with them. I guess the other question is that of whether it deserves its reputation, and how that question bears on the 21st-century viewer’s experience. It’s a hard question for me to answer, because apart from that one Hitchcock class in college, I haven’t been trained in this field and thus don’t harbor resentments about the amount of space Kane takes up in the discourse. I imagine it’s a lot of space, and if you’re a film scholar tired of attending academic conferences at which 90% of the talks concern complicated male protagonists, it might piss you off! And I, for one, would not try to mansplain you out of that opinion.
All of which is to say, I’m pretty comfortable with my level of consciousness about art and art criticism. Like i said, I enjoy the work of getting an A, and watching Kane makes me feel like i am getting an A because there is so much going on and I see new things every time. Simultaneously, I am extremely open to a wide array of experiences in response to a work of art like Kane. The only attitude I have no time for is an incurious one.
What about you? You resisted watching this movie for a long time, because your automatic assumption when something is hailed as the best ever is that everyone is full of shit (I’m paraphrasing). Did it win you over at all?
I mean, it’s not a bad movie. In fact I’d say it’s obviously great. The obviousness is what I get stuck on, although maybe I wouldn’t if not for the film’s reputation.
I think what you said about Citizen Kane making you feel like you’re getting an A encapsulates my love-hate relationship with the literary (or film) canon. There are a lot of works in the canon that seem to be there because smart people can read them and teach them and get an A. There’s so much to unpack and write essays about. And there are so many techniques clearly and expertly deployed that you can grade those essays and know which ones should get As and which should not.
You just described my dream scenario, as a student and as a teacher.
I get that, but as an appreciator of art and a person who, except in my less enjoyable dreams, never has to go back to school and write a graded essay, I don’t give a fuck about the qualities that render a work popular among academic critics, per se.
By contrast, I just watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy over the past couple weeks, while exercising and doing dishes and so on. I don’t know if those films will ever make it onto the Sight and Sound top 100 lists. I don’t feel like I’m getting an A, watching those films - you know who the good guys and bad guys are and it’s not all that complicated. But it’s an astounding feat of filmmaking, it’s visually complex and beautiful in many of the ways Citizen Kane is, and it has wonderful characters and I sometimes cry during it. It’s meaningful and it earns its moments.
Totally agree about LOTR. I have seen those movies probably dozens of times and they also make me cry. I kind of feel like Peter Jackson lost me when he decided to make The Hobbit into three movies, but I don’t begrudge the Rings movies any of their acclaim.
The Hobbit was terrible. And I don’t begrudge Citizen Kane its acclaim. But would it be on your top 10 list for the greatest films of all time? I think even if you exclude “genre” work like LOTR - and we both agree that one should not do so - there are films that are just as complicated, beautiful, well directed and written and produced and acted, and say more important things about life and about American history as we see it today. There Will Be Blood comes to mind, in our era of antidemocratic resource pillaging and hypocritical religious nutjobbery. And that’s a film I’ve only seen once and I don’t know if it’s on my top 10! Don’t you think that part of Citizen Kane’s place in the literary canon comes from it being the right movie, saying the right thing at the right time, to a group of white male critics who are finally losing their grip on the academy after fifty years?
I think we fundamentally agree on how to parse the way society judges art, even if our mileage varies on how much we enjoy the part of consuming art that feels like studying. If I’m going to watch a movie like this, I like the part where we TALK about the shots and the themes and the questions, in addition to arguing about whether they’re worthy of being talked about. So can we do both? Was there anything that impressed or surprised you, or were there things that you recognized from pop culture as having been influenced by it?
Well, my entire academic background in film is that Hitchcock class. I think I understand a lot of the artistic decisions being made in film on a scene-to-scene level, but I have less to say about that than about the social forces that cause one film to be declared the consensus “greatest.” But I agree that the one has to derive from the other to some extent.
Maybe this is from you saying beforehand that you already knew that Rosebud was the sled, and how obvious it then seemed when that sled was so obviously foregrounded during that early sequence about his childhood: this time, I really just couldn’t stop shaking my head at the absurdity of the reporter’s obsession with that word. He’s kind of yada-yada-ing the rest and it’s almost like he’s not really even hearing it. The butler towards the end OFFERS to tell him more about what went on at Xanadu and he’s like nah, I really just need to figure out this Rosebud thing.
I actually read that as the reporter knowing that whatever the butler was going to say wasn’t worth the money the butler was demanding. A thousand bucks in 1941 money - that could buy you a house! But I agree that was dumb; the butler probably had some pretty crazy stories to tell.
And then as the camera slowly pulls back during that last scene as everyone’s walking through all the mountains of Kane’s stuff, everyone’s like “huh, yeah, never did figure out the whole Rosebud thing, oh well,” and it’s like they’re totally missing the point, thinking that there’s this one key that can unlock Kane for them. Remember that we start the movie with this newsreel of Kane’s life, which gives us a very broad strokes, TV announcer version of his accomplishments. This time, all of this made me think that no one actually has any real curiosity about Kane. They want a good story that will sell papers; they want Rosebud to be some eye-popping revelation. Which is, of course, thanks to Kane himself. The story of an emotionally stunted man with questionable motives whose relationship to his own power, fame, and wealth is complicated to say the very least? Not news; no one really wants that kind of a peek behind the curtain.
Made me think about what’s different and the same about the way we eulogize the dead, especially the complicated dead (Michael Jackson, Kobe Bryant). Do you think we’ve gotten better at seeking out and perpetuating more nuanced narratives about famous people?
Well, one major difference that’s actually foregrounded, watching Citizen Kane today, is the death of the monoculture. When Kobe Bryant died, there wasn’t a Hearst Corporation to print the same obituary in every newspaper in the country, right? There are several major tv news networks, then newspapers and magazines and the entirety of the internet, where yes, those who are looking for it can usually find a nuanced narrative. Certainly you’ll find someone willing to talk about the rape stuff. But most people are not intellectuals, and there’s a social tradition of staying positive about the recently deceased, and so yeah, I don’t think mainstream media has changed a ton in the last 80 years.
Similarly, I do think that Orson Welles thought he was making mass media for the monoculture; I suspect (having done no research) that he and RKO wanted to have a big hit that was generally accessible (even with all the shit about operatic soprano music! Reminded me of Mildred Pierce, another work set in the 1940s, hinging on how everyone loves operatic sopranos. I don’t buy it!). A comparable film made in our era - a film that I think has a lot to say about individual legacy, and American history, would be There Will Be Blood. I’d say that film is comparable to Citizen Kane in “greatness,” for all the things that means, and I’m sure it was influenced by Citizen Kane, but I doubt anyone involved in making or distributing it thought it was going to be a big, mainstream hit. They just thought there was room in the market for that kind of nuance.
An interesting thing that those two films had in common, now that you mention it, is the amount of creative control Welles and Anderson, respectively, were given. They could essentially write their own ticket, even though Kane was the first movie Welles made (!). Paul Thomas Anderson, by contrast, had made Boogie Nights and others like Punch Drunk Love and Magnolia, and though none of them were what I would call mainstream hits, Boogie Nights was enough for a studio to be like “please make a movie with us and we’ll give you whatever you want.” In the case of There Will Be Blood, he was being backed by Miramax, of Weinstein kingmaker fame, and if there ever were a studio to make a name for itself in cerebral, auteur movies that also have a shot at mainstream appeal, well.
I do think you’re right, though, that Welles openly saw himself as making THE great American movie; having heard interviews with Paul Thomas Anderson, I think he has a bit more self awareness and perhaps a bit less hubris as a director (though much more experience by the mid-naughties, which is my favorite way of referring to the aughts).
I’m not sure I’d put Sorrentino and Welles together like that. I agree as to Sorrentino, but I think Welles had no conception of laundry-folding as movie watching pastime because that wasn’t possible in 1941.
Okay, not laundry folding - necking with your date? Getting up to go to the bathroom?
I suspect it was more of a “ok, you paid your money folks, look at all this shit we got here for you!” Because at the time he saw going to the cinema as a natural extension of theater-going, which it more arguably was at that time. When directors today complain about how streaming (and Covid) is ruining the cinema experience, to the extent they’re not being curmudgeons and/or rightfully recognizing the fascist cesspool that is superhero cinema, they’re recognizing that the public doesn’t see movie-watching as the special event they wish it was. And that may be why I don’t really connect with the film to the same degree as prior generations of critics and directors; movies for me have always been primarily a home-viewing experience. Notably, the 2012 Sight and Sound directors poll had Tokyo Story at the top, and that’s a film that is fairly small in scale and plays just as well on a small screen.
We should probably wrap this up. I guess I’d say in closing that I do think I understand why Citizen Kane has been so highly regarded for so long. And while I did appreciate it, mostly I feel a bit let down that I no longer have Citizen Kane out there, to be watched. I guess I sort of enjoyed knowing that one of the greatest films of all time was still out there for me, even if (or perhaps because) I suspected it wouldn’t be the greatest film of all time for me personally. Know what I mean? Are there any films out there that fit that bill for you?
Sure. We haven’t subscribed to the Criterion Collection and I hear there’s a lot of amazing French cinema in there. I’m not even sure I could name five French films from the 20th century, but I would like to think that if another lockdown situation happens when we don’t have a small child to take up all our time, we could stream some Truffaut or whatever and blog about it.
I have seen Truffaut’s name a million times and I know very little about him. Also, I think I was supposed to read his essays on Hitchcock and I either did not, or instantly forgot them.
He’s like the figurehead an entire cinematic movement that I know nothing about, but I know enough to know that there is a lot there for me if I ever get around to it. I also think there are more “great” books out there that I haven’t read, à la Proust, that I would someday like to summit, and I do find it comforting to know that I will never run out of those. My dad has started keeping track of all the books he reads, and given his currently annual rate of books read (around 40 or so) he now knows for certain that there is not enough time before he dies to read everything he wants to read. I think it bums him out, but it would bum him out more if he got to the end of the good stuff and felt like there was nothing left to last him through retirement.
I remember a high school math teacher or something, telling me that until the mid-1700s it was possible for a single rich English person to have read every famous book and learned literally everything there was to know about every mathematical and scientific discipline. It’s great to live in a time when the production and distribution costs are low enough, and society is wealthy enough, that the arts and sciences match the infinite diversity of human experience. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 31 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Foster_Kane | en | Charles Foster Kane | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg/40px-Edit-... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2004-05-06T03:28:35+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Foster_Kane | Character in the film "Citizen Kane"
Fictional character
Charles Foster KaneCitizen Kane characterFirst appearanceCitizen KaneCreated byHerman J. Mankiewicz
Orson WellesPortrayed byOrson Welles
Buddy Swan (as a child)In-universe informationGenderMaleOccupationOwner/Publisher of the New York Daily InquirerFamilyJim Kane (father)
Mary Kane (mother)
Walter Parks Thatcher (legal guardian)SpouseEmily Monroe Norton Kane (first wife)
Susan Alexander Kane (second wife)ChildrenCharles Foster Kane III (deceased)ReligionChristianNationalityAmerican
Charles Foster Kane is a fictional character who is the subject of Orson Welles' 1941 film Citizen Kane. Welles played Kane (receiving an Academy Award nomination), with Buddy Swan playing Kane as a child. Welles also produced, co-wrote and directed the film, winning an Oscar for writing the film.
Inspiration
[edit]
The general consensus is that publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst is the primary inspiration behind Charles Foster Kane.
In the film, Kane is given the line "You provide the prose poems; I'll provide the war," undeniably similar to "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war," a quote widely attributed to Hearst. Also, an overhead shot of Hearst's ranch is shown in the film as Xanadu, the lavish estate where Kane resides.
In addition, Kane's unsuccessful attempt to make his second wife an opera star parallels Hearst's effort to make his mistress Marion Davies a serious dramatic movie actress despite critics' complaints that she was miscast and better in light comedy roles. The connection with Hearst is strengthened by the fact that Welles's co-writer, Herman J. Mankiewicz, was a frequent guest of Davies at Hearst Castle.
Some biographies of Welles posit that Welles himself was a source of inspiration for the character. Some of the character's dialogue on how to run a newspaper are direct quotes from Welles's comments on how to make a motion picture (though this was his first). Mankiewicz included dialogue about Kane's voracious appetite, also a reference to Welles.
Later news media figures including Sumner Murray Redstone, Rupert Murdoch,[1] Ted Turner,[2] and Elon Musk have been compared to Kane.[3]
Fictional character biography
[edit]
Citizen Kane explores the life of the titular character. We are given an overview of his public career in the pastiche News on the March newsreel, with some parts then shown in more detail through the flashback recollections of those who knew him.
Early years
[edit]
Kane is born of humble origins in the fictional settlement of Little Salem, Colorado, in 1862 or 1863.[a] A supposedly worthless mine given to his mother in 1868—to settle a bill for room and board by Fred Graves — is discovered to be rich in gold, making the family suddenly fabulously wealthy. In 1871, in return for an annual income of $50,000, Kane's mother puts her son and the money under the guardianship of New York City banker Walter Parks Thatcher, who raises Kane in luxury. Kane resents Thatcher for ripping him away from his family, and spends most of his early adult life rebelling against him. He attends prestigious colleges such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell and a college in Switzerland—and gets himself expelled from all of them.
At the age of 25 Kane acquires control of the money, the world's sixth-largest private fortune. He returns from a trip abroad to take control of the New York Daily Inquirer,[b] a struggling newspaper acquired on his behalf by Thatcher as a result of a foreclosure on a debt, thinking that "it would be fun to run a newspaper". He takes up full-time residence in the newspaper office (the sitting editor resigning in protest) and in the first edition publishes a "declaration of principles" stating his duty to be truthful to his readers and to campaign on behalf of the poor and underprivileged. His best friend Jedediah Leland - the Inquirer's drama critic - asks to keep the text of the declaration, feeling it might one day be an important document.
To Thatcher's fury, Kane campaigns against slum landlords, "copper robbers" and "traction trusts" (monopoly control of railways) - including companies in which he himself is a major shareholder. To finance the fledgling Inquirer, Kane uses his personal resources, reasoning that this would allow him to operate it, even at a million-dollar annual loss, for 60 years. Over a period of six years, Kane also hires staff members away from the rival Chronicle newspaper, regarding them as collectibles. However, he uses yellow journalism tactics to blow stories out of proportion and encourage a war with Spain in 1898.
Political career
[edit]
Kane, whose party affiliation is never explicitly specified, is shown to be a supporter of Theodore Roosevelt, joining him on a whistle stop train tour.[c] "One President at least" owes his election to the support of Kane's newspapers.
Kane eventually marries Emily Monroe Norton, the niece of a President of the United States.[d] Their marriage takes place at the White House. The marriage sours because of Kane's egomania, obsession with his newspapers and attacks on her uncle's administration. Their marital problems reach the point that they are barely on speaking terms, with Kane ignoring Emily as she reads the rival Chronicle newspaper at breakfast.
Kane opposes US entry into World War I.
As his popularity increases, Kane, who regards himself and is widely seen as a future President, runs as a "fighting liberal" for Governor of New York in 1916, against corrupt boss James "Jim" W. Gettys. He addresses a packed rally at Madison Square Gardens,[e] promising to have Gettys arrested and sent to prison. An election victory is almost certain until Gettys reveals evidence of Kane's affair with a young singer named Susan Alexander. Gettys blackmails Kane, meeting with him and his wife at Susan's apartment, but Kane refuses to drop out of the race despite Gettys' leverage. The scandal goes public and Kane loses the election decisively.
The night of Kane's loss, a drunk and disillusioned Leland asks him for a transfer to the Chicago paper. He accuses Kane of treating "the working man" he claims to fight for as a possession, and says that, for all his talk of helping the less fortunate, the only person Kane really cares about is himself. Kane allows him to transfer to Chicago, effectively ending their friendship.
Emily divorces Kane shortly afterward, and dies two years later, along with their son, in a car accident.
Later life
[edit]
Two weeks after his first divorce, Kane marries Susan in a small ceremony at the City Hall in Trenton, New Jersey. He forces her into a doomed and humiliating career as an opera singer, building an opera house in Chicago[f] specially for her. Leland, now a drama critic for the Chicago Inquirer, refuses to toe the company line by praising Alexander's performances. Leland becomes too drunk at the difficult task of writing a truthful review against Kane's wishes, and falls into a stupor. Kane visits the paper's newsroom and finishes the review with Leland's negative tone intact, intending to prove that he still has integrity; he then fires Leland. In retaliation, Leland refuses his severance package and mails back the torn-up check with the original copy of Kane's "declaration of principles", which Kane angrily destroys.
After Susan attempts suicide, Kane releases her from her disastrous operatic career and spends most of his time at Xanadu, his gigantic Gothic chateau, full of objets d'art which he has acquired over the decades, and built on an artificial mountain on his vast estate in Florida. By 1925 Kane is being denounced as a "communist" by the aged Thatcher to a congressional committee, and in the same month as an enemy of the working man and a "fascist" by a speaker at a public rally in Union Square, Manhattan. He insists that he is simply "an American". The business downturns of the Great Depression—as well as Kane's excessive spending habits on the crumbling and unfinished Xanadu—forces him to downsize his media empire. He is also forced to hand over financial management of his businesses, although not operational control of his newspapers, to the aged Thatcher.[g] Susan is unable to stand the monotonous routine inside the cavernous mansion and Kane's increasingly domineering nature, and eventually leaves him.[h]
Kane continues to travel and meet with world leaders. He returns from an aeroplane trip to Europe in 1935, declaring that he has met with the leaders of "England, France, Germany and Italy" and that "there will be no war". He initially supports Adolf Hitler, with whom he appears on a balcony, but later denounces him. He also meets with but denounces Francisco Franco.
Death
[edit]
Kane eventually becomes a recluse at Xanadu, living alone and estranged from all his friends and no longer wielding much influence over politics. Most of his giant estate is now overgrown, with most of the animals gone from its zoos. He dies alone in his bedroom one night in 1941, after uttering his last word, "Rosebud."
The death of the "Great Yellow Journalist" is a national news event and is the lead story in many newspapers. His own Inquirer chain devotes the entire front page to him, praising him for his "lifetime of service" and stating that the "entire nation mourns". The rival Chronicle is less complimentary, recalling his "stormy career" and stating that "few … will mourn" him. The Chicago Globe also mentions his "stormy career" and denounces him as "US Fascist No 1"; the last two papers run unflattering photographs of him. The Minneapolis Record Herald praises him as the "Sponsor of Democracy", the Detroit Star as "Leader of [the] News World" and a "Man of Destiny", but the El Paso Journal accuses him of having "Instigated War for Profit". His death is also covered in the French, Japanese and Russian press.
Reporter Jerry Thompson is assigned to find out what "Rosebud" means. Despite interviewing all of Kane's living acquaintances, he never finds out what it is. After the reporters depart, his staff start burning in an incinerator those of his possessions which they see as trash. The viewer sees that the word "Rosebud" was written on the sled Kane's parents gave him as a young boy, and left behind at his mother's boarding house when he was sent away to live with Thatcher. It is implied earlier in the film that Kane found the sled in a warehouse, where he had been looking over his late mother's possessions, around the time he first met Susan.
Relationships
[edit]
Susan Alexander
[edit]
Susan Alexander Kane (Dorothy Comingore) was Kane's second wife. She was twenty-one when they first met in the mid-1910s (Kane would have been at least fifty); she is evidently low class and is in charge of the sheet music at a shop. Kane was attracted to her because she liked him for himself, despite not knowing he was a public figure. Kane sets her up in a larger and more comfortable apartment with an African American maid,[i] which Gettys describes as a "Love nest" to implicate her as Kane's mistress; the film does not make it clear whether she really was. However, a mere two weeks after his first wife divorced him in 1916, Kane married Susan.
Susan was an aspiring opera singer when she and Kane first met, but is not particularly talented. Despite this, Kane tried to force her into a career as an opera singer, even building an opera house specifically for her, in which she performs the leading role in a fictional opera Salammbo. Her weak voice and poor acting attract the derision of the audience and of the stage hands. Kane's Xanadu estate was built at least in part to please her. Susan is the last of Kane's friends to leave him as well as the original owner of the snow globe he drops after saying "rosebud". As of 1941, she is still living, but is an alcoholic. Despite having "lost all her money" she is running a run-down nightclub ("El Rancho") in Atlantic City, which is where she is interviewed by Jerry Thompson.
Jedediah Leland
[edit]
Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten) was a close friend of Kane, having met him in college. According to Mr. Bernstein, he came from a wealthy family that lost all their money. He is generally acknowledged to represent the morality and idealism Kane himself loses as the film progresses. During Kane's campaign for Governor, he is seen addressing a small audience in the street shortly before Kane's speech. In disgust at Kane's throwing away of the election, he moves to Chicago to work as drama critic for the Inquirer in that city; by the time he writes his bad review of Susan Alexander's operatic debut, he and Kane have not spoken in a number of years. In 1941 Jedediah lives in a nursing home in Manhattan, where Jerry Thompson interviews him.
Walter Thatcher
[edit]
Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris) is a New York banker. He becomes Kane's legal guardian in 1871. Kane resents him and, when he comes into control of his fortune in the late 1880s, uses the Inquirer to harass him. Thatcher, clearly getting on in years by the 1890s, initially regards Kane as mentally "still the college boy" and urges him to greater financial prudence. In a scene in the newsreel in 1925, Thatcher, described as the "grand old man of Wall Street", tells a congressional investigation that Kane is a Communist. Thatcher is still alive, presumably at least in his nineties, after the Crash of 1929, and takes control of Kane's failing business empire, although allowing Kane to retain "a considerable measure of control" over his newspapers and reassuring Kane that the Depression is merely temporary and that he might yet die richer than him. When Thatcher asks Kane what he would have liked to have been, Kane replies "Everything you hate". He is dead by 1941, his unpublished memoirs kept in a vault.
Mr. Bernstein
[edit]
Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane) is a business executive and by 1941 is Chairman of the Board of Directors of Kane's business interests. Having served as Kane's personal assistant since at least when he took over the Inquirer, Bernstein proved the most loyal to the man. He is on good enough terms to visit and leave a present for Kane's infant son, to Mrs Kane's irritation. Bernstein willingly participated in indulging Kane's obsession in his wife's operatic career even though it was ill-considered by everyone else. However, he has scruples such as advising his employer not to make promises he cannot keep in his Declaration of Principles.
Wealth and empire
[edit]
Apart from the New York Inquirer, Kane publishes similar Inquirer newspapers in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and other major American cities. The News on the March newsreel at the beginning of the film also states that Kane controls two newspaper syndicates and a radio network; it also mentions that Kane has other business interests in real estate, logging, shipping, and food retailing. However, Kane's empire largely collapses at the onset of the Great Depression, and he is forced to hand financial control of his remaining holdings (although not operational control of his newspapers) to Thatcher. Kane has enough wealth to build Chicago's opera house, as well as his unfinished mansion, Xanadu.
The mansion contains Kane's vast collection of classical sculptures and art, and the newsreel states that portions of Xanadu were taken from other famous palaces overseas.
Notes
[edit]
References
[edit] | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 66 | https://www.phactual.com/13-facts-surrounding-the-legendary-film-citizen-kane/ | en | 13 Facts Surrounding The Legendary Film ‘Citizen Kane’ | [
"https://www.phactual.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/san-diego-health-new1-300x200.png",
"https://www.phactual.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/are-nootropics-worth-the-hype-300x200.jpg",
"https://www.phactual.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/pat-boone-relief-factor-300x300.jpg",
"https://www.phactual.com/wp-cont... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Team Phactual",
"Phactual Magazine"
] | 2019-02-22T02:58:57+00:00 | Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane defined his long and eccentric career as a filmmaker and a thespian. It is widely regarded as one of the most important movies ever | en | Phactual Magazine | https://www.phactual.com/13-facts-surrounding-the-legendary-film-citizen-kane/ | Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane defined his long and eccentric career as a filmmaker and a thespian. It is widely regarded as one of the most important movies ever made, if not one of the very best.
The story, about the rise and fall of megalomaniacal newspaper mogul Charles Foster Kane, was based loosely on the life of William Randolph Hearst, revolutionized the way films were shot, and is a technical masterwork. The journey from page to screen for Welles’ masterpiece is an interesting one, and here are a baker’s dozen of things to know…
1. The film’s opening – just the title, no star names – was almost unprecedented in 1941. It is now the industry norm for Hollywood blockbusters.
2. On the night the movie opened in San Francisco, Orson Welles found himself alone with William Randolph Hearst in an elevator at the city’s Fairmont Hotel. Aware that his father and Hearst were friends, Welles extended an invitation to the magnate to attend the film’s premiere. Hearst turned down the offer and, as he was about to exit the elevator at his floor, Welles remarked, “Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.”
3. To keep studio execs off his back, Orson Welles claimed the cast and crew were “in rehearsal” during the first few days of shooting. It took a number of days before the studio caught on.
4. This was Welles’ very first film. At 25-years old he wrote, produced, directed, and starred.
5. For this movie Orson Welles, along with cinematographer Gregg Toland, invented and perfected what is called “deep focus”, a technique that keeps every object in the foreground, center and background in simultaneous focus. This brought a sense of depth to the two-dimensional world of movies.
6. The camera looks up at Charles Foster Kane and his best friend Jedediah Leland and down at weaker characters like Susan Alexander Kane. This was a technique that Orson Welles borrowed from John Ford, who had used it previously on Stagecoach in 1939. Welles privately watched Stagecoach about 40 times while making this film.
7. During filming, Orson Welles started treating Dorothy Comingore terribly, deliberately humiliating her in front of the cast and crew. This was to make her hate him, strengthening her performance.
Citizen Kane (1941)
8. The scene where Kane destroys Susan’s room after she’s left him was done on the first take. Orson Welles’ hands were bleeding, and he is quoted as saying, “I really felt it.”
9. Despite all the publicity, the film was a box-office flop and was quickly consigned to the RKO vaults. At 1941’s Academy Awards the film was booed every time one of its nine nominations was announced. It was only re-released to the public in the mid-’50s.
10. William Randolph Hearst was so angered by the film that he accused Orson Welles of being a Communist in order to keep the film from being released.
11. During filming Orson Welles received a warning that William Randolph Hearst had arranged for a naked woman to jump into his arms when he entered his hotel room, and there was also a photographer in the room to take a picture that would be used to discredit him. Welles spent the night elsewhere, and it is unknown if the warning was true.
12. The movie’s line “Rosebud” was voted as #3 of The 100 Greatest Movie Lines by Premiere magazine in 2007. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 90 | https://www.fernbyfilms.com/2011/10/10/movie-review-citizen-kane/ | en | Movie Review – Citizen Kane | [
"https://www.fernbyfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-Website-MAIN-Logo-Design-v3.2.png",
"https://www.fernbyfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/2024-Website-MAIN-Logo-Design-v3.2.png",
"https://www.fernbyfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Citizen-Kane-Review-Logo-BP-Version.jpg",
"http://www.fernby... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2011-10-10T00:00:00 | en | https://www.fernbyfilms.com/2011/10/10/movie-review-citizen-kane/ | **********************
It’s hard to know where to begin with a film as important, and amazing, as Citizen Kane. I’m hard pressed to name very many pre-1950 films that I actually enjoyed (The Man With The Golden Arm is usually top of my list, alongside The Wizard Of Oz), but Citizen Kane is a new, and utterly acceptable, entry into that list. What’s even more amazing to me, after watching the film and the accompanying Oscar-nominated documentary accompanying it on DVD, The Battle For Citizen Kane, is how the story behind the film is almost better than the film itself. A superstar media legend, aged only 24, creating a film based around the life story of a still-living newspaper magnate, and the stoush which eventuated, almost destroyed a movie studio, and ruined said media legends career in Hollywood for decades. Citizen Kane is a film about, and made by, people with distinctly strong personalities who refuse to give an inch, for better or worse. Almost analogous of its director, Citizen Kane was a bright shining comet slicing through the Hollywood firmament, before burning out in a blaze of negative publicity. What am I talking about, you ask? We’ll get to that in a moment, but suffice to say, Citizen Kane is a film-lovers film, the kind of movie which is essential viewing for anybody with a love of the medium. Appreciating Citizen Kane now, some 60+ years since its release, I can understand how younger, less historically minded film fans might not appreciate Citizen Kane’s often dated techniques, but for anybody with a passion for film, a genuine, deep seated understanding of the medium, this film is essential viewing.
The film opens with the death of a man, who utters the word “Rosebud”, before slipping away. He lives in an enormous castle-like building, dark and foreboding and apparently unfinished. We then cut to a newsreel, showing the life and times of one Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), an American media magnate who took a little known New York Enquirer from the small-time to a major success, eventually owning a vast media empire across the country. A reporter (William Alland) is charged with a mission: to determine the meaning behind Kane’s last word on Earth, and sets out to interview those who knew him best: his best friend Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotton), his second ex-wife Susan (Dorothy Comingore), among others. On this journey, we learn more about Kane the man; a driven, lonely, belligerent man who mistook his love for the people for the love of the people, and treated those he was close to cruelly and whimsically. His final days, eked out inside his massive Floridian retreat, Xanadu, seems a prison to those who live there, especially Susan, who leaves him after a forced period of indentured performances as an opera singer – and a poor one at that.
Orson Welles came to Hollywood fresh off the controversy and success of his now-infamous War Of The Worlds radio broadcast, in which he created a panic through the country when folks actually thought aliens had landed in a small town outside of New York. RKO pictures, one of the original Big Five studios during Hollywood’s Golden Age, gave Welles an unprecedented amount of control in his two-picture contract, including the near-unheard of “final cut” privilege, something no unproven, first time director was ever given. This bizarre contract, to direct two films for RKO, proved to be the near undoing of the studio, and virtually ruined Welles’ career afterwards. Welles teamed with legendary Hollywood screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz to write a script based somewhat loosely on the life story of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, a man who took a little San Francisco newspaper to a major media empire during the early 1900’s. The character of Charles Foster Kane became the embodiment of Hearst; in fact, Kane could even be said to be something of a composite of both Hearst and Welles together – he was a man who believed his own press, thought himself to be unassailable thanks to a large, national platform from which to give his opinions, much like the aloof and often belligerent Hearst himself. The combination of both personalities was a potent mix, and the character truly does light up on screen. Welles set out to rile up Hearst as well, using various elements from the moguls life in the film – apparently, the term “rosebud” was actually the term Hearst used for his mistress’s private parts, his mistress being Marion Davies; while Hearst’s treatment of Davies was appropriated for the destructive way Kane treats his second wife, Susan. This was all done under the noses of the RKO studio heads, who, as part of Welles’ contract, were not allowed on the set to interfere – yet another concept Hollywood thought to be the studio’s greatest folly.
Once the film was completed, however, the battle wasn’t yet won. RKO Studios had a problem with Hearst refusing to advertise the film in his papers, and threaten to pull advertising for any cinema brave enough to show it – the end result meant that Kane had to be screened in an RKO owned cinema, resulting in lower than hoped box office returns. No Hearst newspaper carried a review of the film at all, meaning the reach the film had in the public eye was limited at best. To thwart the release of the film, Louis B Mayer, the head of MGM Studios, offered to buy the original negatives for nearly a million dollars (an enormous sum for the time) so they could be burnt, lest the wrath of Hearst bring down most of Hollywood! Yes, a film about a man who dies with Rosebud on his lips enraged the media magnate, and almost destroyed RKO Studios.
Controversy aside, Citizen Kane strides out of the shadow of Hearst and Welles with its supreme majesty intact. This is an amazing film in its own right – a film deserving of much of the kudos thrown its was since it became popular to enjoy it during the 50’s, after Hearst’s death had allowed the passing of time to ensure RKO (which folded in 1959) to bring it back to a new audience with the chance to see it minus any conflagration of personality. Whether it’s the “best film ever made” is, of course, a subjective statement, and I would argue that there might be more “enjoyable” films out there than this one, but for style, cinematography and the brazen, derring-do balls this film dangles on the screen, Citizen Kane might just be the “best made film ever”. Welles poured his heart and soul into the film, and along with Gregg Toland, produced a film of such stunning design and visual magnificence, it still remains jaw-dropping to this day. The camera angles and shot selection, from beneath-the-floor upwards shots of Kane’s post-election defeat, striding across the bullpen of his newspaper with a disgruntled fervor, to the wonderful deep-focus method Tolland played with during the shoot (deep focus has every aspect of each frame, be it foreground, mid-ground or background, in focus at the same time, traditionally a problematic way of shooting on film, due to technical limitations of the era) to the stunning use of shadow in the narrative to highlight various emotional beats in the film – Citizen Kane is a visualists dream to watch.
The thing that struck me the most profoundly was Welles’s use of lighting – or rather, the specific use of shadow, as I mentioned before. Faces and entire characters disappear into complete darkness, merely silhouettes on the screen, casting a menacing quality in each scene this occurs. This brave decision to have characters move in and out of the light, as if moving from some personal darkness into absolution, or perhaps into the glare of a spotlight, is wonderful to watch. Kane is a film in black-and-white, the stark contrast between the light and shade only serves to elicit more emotion from the viewer, and the exquisite cinematography used throughout the entire movie is a frame-by-frame masterclass in how to light a scene. If you don’t respect the story or the character, you will simply be unable to argue to the fabulous use of storytelling method Welles employed. Acclaimed director Robert Wise (who would go on to direct The Sound Of Music, The Day The Earth Stood Still, and West Side Story, among others!) was responsible for editing this film, and both he and Welles poured over the imagery they had to work with for a long time. The end result, though, is superb.
From a performance aspect, the entire cast does a superb job with their respective roles, and Welles gives them plenty of substance to work with. This isn’t a film of easy emotions – conflict and human damage occurs often and harshly here – and each major character has his or her own foibles (always wanted to use the term “foibles” in a pre-50’s film review!) which the audience will either appreciate, or they wont. Leading off, Welles, as Kane himself, is towering in the role. perhaps because of his involvement with the character from the screenplay writing with Mank, he literally becomes Kane in every respect, and his screen presence indicates just why RKO had so much faith in him in the first place. Welles sears the screen as one of cinemas most execrable people; Kane’s an asshole, plain and simple, and while the character might be ostensibly unlikable, Welles’s ability to inhabit the role so completely and generate a small amount of sympathy for him as a person, is superlative. Ably supporting him is Dorothy Comingore as the winsome, butterfly-soft Susan, Kane’s songbird second wife. Comingore’s character is a whiny, weak-willed woman, who’s downtrodden existence is cursorily dealt with by Kane. Susan isn’t a strong person, yet Comingore delivers the goods with regards to her character. Joseph Cotton is excellent as Kane’s best friend Jedediah, and although of all the major players in the piece his is the weakest, he still does a great job with what he’s given. Ruth Warrick, as Kane’s first wife, is solid as a rock, with a real emotional wallop when she discovers her husband is a cheating, lying bastard.
Citizen Kane isn’t a film without faults, though, although in saying that, all those faults are era-specific and in no way related to the intangibles such as character or story. No, perhaps the films biggest weakness is in some of its practical effects – the old-age make-up specifically. While the prosthetic make-up used for the character of Kane is actually pretty damn amazing, the ones used for the rest of the cast is a little weak in terms of realism. The most sour note in this regard is that of Jedediah’s make-up, which makes Joe Cotton look more like a patchwork leper than a real human. If this is all I can pick that’s dated with the film (aside from some of the now-obvious visual effects, matte work and double exposure shots) that pulls modern viewers out of the story, then this film does indeed hold up well, all things considered.
Is Citizen Kane the greatest film ever made? In my opinion, not quite. I think there are other films that can be considered “greater”, depending of course on what your definition of cinematic greatness actually is, but Kane is definitely in the upper echelon of awesome films to come out of the Golden Age of Hollywood. While the background story has, to a certain extent, served to both promote and overshadow the actual film, the film itself is still a stunning work of art that should be witnessed by anybody claiming to be a true film fan. Citizen Kane is truly one of the great films of all time.
Who wrote this? | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 89 | https://variety.com/2020/film/columns/who-wrote-citizen-kane-orson-welles-herman-mankiewicz-pauline-kael-1234841438/ | en | Who Wrote ‘Citizen Kane’? It’s a Mystery Even if You Know the Answer | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=6035310&c4=&cv=3.9&cj=1",
"https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/orson-welles-citizen-kane-gary-oldman-mank.jpg?w=1000&h=562&crop=1",
"https://variety.com/wp-content/themes/pmc-variety-2020/assets/public/lazyload-fallback.gif",
"https://variety.com/wp-conte... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Owen Gleiberman"
] | 2020-11-28T18:56:20+00:00 | Owen Gleiberman on how the controversy over who deserves the screenplay credit for "Citizen Kane" is a conduit to a deeper creative mystery. | en | Variety | https://variety.com/2020/film/columns/who-wrote-citizen-kane-orson-welles-herman-mankiewicz-pauline-kael-1234841438/ | For all the piles of research and miles of column inches that have been devoted to it, the controversy over the creative authorship of “Citizen Kane” — a kerfuffle that’s now 50 years old, and one that’s been given new heat by the release of David Fincher’s “Mank” — would seem to revolve around a relatively simple question:
Who wrote “Citizen Kane”?
Was it Herman J. Mankiewicz, the brilliant, witty, slumming, past-his-prime, usually sloshed screenwriter played with dissolute droll charisma by Gary Oldman in “Mank”? Or did Orson Welles, the velvet-voiced boy-wonder genius-egomaniac who wound up splitting the screenplay credit with Mankiewicz, fully earn the right to that co-credit? Did Welles contribute enough of the structuring, editing, and — yes — writing of “Citizen Kane,” and did enough of the film’s animating ideas descend from him, to make the suggestion that Mankiewicz was the hidden engine of the movie a canard?
In fact, the answers to all this were nailed down long ago, by Robert L. Carringer in his 1978 article “The Scripts of Citizen Kane” (which became absorbed into his riveting book “The Making of Citizen Kane,” published in 1985) and by sources like Peter Bogdanovich in his eye-opening 1972 Esquire magazine piece “The Kane Mutiny.” Both offer definitive evidence that Welles was intimately involved in the writing of “Citizen Kane.” And both serve as a rebuke to the writer who first lit the controversy on fire: Pauline Kael, the great film critic — to me, she’ll always be the greatest film critic — who in her 50,000-word essay “Raising Kane,” originally published in The New Yorker in 1971, made a rare fatal blunder by fudging facts and systematically overstating Mankiewicz’s contribution to the movie.
Popular on Variety
In other words…done and done. Case closed. End of controversy.
But not really. Because even once you accept that Orson Welles did deserve the co-screenplay credit for “Citizen Kane,” there’s a question that lingers, and it’s the mystery that I think Kael tried (unsuccessfully) to poke at. Kael’s essay, among other things, was a kind of backhanded meditation on the inner meaning of what a screenplay is. And the reason that question creates such an endless conundrum when we think of “Citizen Kane” is that “Kane” was the Hollywood movie that changed the answer to it.
If you believe, as I do, that “Kane” is the greatest movie to have come out of classic Hollywood, and maybe the greatest movie ever made, and then you ask, “Okay, but why is it the greatest movie?,” the answer is 50 reasons at once — the visionary excitement of it, the through-a-snow-globe-darkly gothic majesty of it, the joyous acting, the hypnotic structure, the playfulness, the doomy haunting mythology of Rosebud, and on and on and on. The pleasures and profundity of “Kane” are right there on the surface, and infinitely deep beneath the surface.
But what sometimes gets lost in film history, especially for those of us born decades after “Kane’s” premiere, is that the consummate audacity of the movie, the thing that continues to make it such a singular and bracing experience, is that in its inky-shadowed, looming-ceilinged, boundlessly inventive and imaginative baroque showman’s way, “Kane” was a Hollywood movie that subverted the cosmos of Hollywood. It leapt ahead to an age when movies would be wedded to social and psychological reality in ways that the studio system never fully had room for.
I don’t say that as an insult to classic Hollywood. Hitchcock and Capra, film noir and MGM musicals, Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable and James Stewart — to me, they’re as good as it gets. Yet just as you can acknowledge that and still point out that Marlon Brando brought a lightning flash of authenticity to the big screen that revolutionized movies, “Kane,” in a different way (and nine years before Brando’s film debut), brought a similar lightning flash. Only Welles was so far ahead of his time that the movies would have to wait years to be influenced by him. In 1941, the year of “Kane,” most movies were conceived in two dimensions, good movies sometimes achieved three dimensions, but “Kane” was a four-dimensional media-wise shadow play of the real. It used the life of the media tycoon William Randolph Hearst in such a knowing and immediate way that it seemed to break down the wall that separated life and art.
A good dollop of that came from Mankiewicz, and that’s the subject of “Mank”: how in addition to drinking and gambling, he spent the ’30s hobnobbing with Hollywood power brokers, soaking up the tricks of their trade — the way they charmed and manipulated and terrorized, bending the world to their whims and wills. And, of course, Mank got to know Hearst and his silver-screen inamorata, Marion Davies. He glimpsed their lives from the inside (he was friends with Davies, and saw the gilded cage she lived in), and he drew on all of that in his portrait of life inside Kane’s castle, Xanadu (a gloss on Hearst’s fortress of San Simeon).
The word “gossip” doesn’t exactly evoke art, but Mankiewicz, in using what was basically gossip to fuel the story of Charles Foster Kane, foresaw the Age Of Reality — not reality TV, but the age when movies would begin to shape and reflect the world around them, rather than a rarefied Dream Factory confection of good and evil. One of the messages of “Mank” is that Mankiewicz, in scripting the epic first draft of the drama that was originally entitled “American,” could only dare to write such a script because he had nothing to lose.
But what would “American” have looked like without Orson Welles? Early on, “Mank” shows us Mankiewicz writing one of the narrator’s lines from the News on the March faux newsreel sequence that kick-starts “Citizen Kane.” Did he actually write that line? Maybe so. But the News on the March sequence is one of the most astonishing nine minutes in American film history. There had never been anything like it — an intricate documentary, full of lurching tonal shifts and contrasting film stocks, embedded inside a big-scale movie. That sequence plants us inside the real world, the same way that Welles’ staging of “The War of the Worlds” as a radio broadcast of an actual alien attack planted H.G. Wells’ sci-fi saga in the real world. The Welles aesthetic — and the reason he fought Hollywood from the get-go — was rooted in his reverence for a transcendent reality. (Just watch the restored version of “Touch of Evil,” a noir that revels in its empty-cantina-and-lonely-telephone-wires bordertown squalor and grunge.) Welles sought a movie art that flowed in and out of the life around us. Twenty years before John Cassavetes, he was the first American independent filmmaker.
The discussion about the “Citizen Kane” screenplay is really a way of asking: How did “Kane” acquire its quality of (magical) realism? Who gave it that essence? The short answer is: Orson Welles. The slightly longer answer is: Welles, with a major contribution from Mankiewicz — and, of course, from his other collaborators, like the cinematographer Gregg Toland and the composer Bernard Hermann. Both answers are true, and Welles, in fact, was not a credit hog. He initially fought Mankiewicz on the “Kane” credit, asking for sole credit himself, because his contract with RKO demanded it. The arbitration that resulted in the co-credit was a primitive version of the arbitrations that now go on routinely. “Mank” makes a point of the fact that it’s set during the early, formative days of the Screenwriter’s Guild, when Hollywood writers were setting out to establish not just their power but their identity.
Writers in Hollywood have always struggled for prestige, but they acquired more of it over the last 50 years than they possessed under the studio system, where they were generally considered hacks with a knack. That system meant that they often didn’t get credit, which was fine with most of them (like Mankiewicz), because they got paid. Part of the controversy over the writing of “Citizen Kane” relates simply to the ways that the times have changed. It’s far more conventional today to see a director get a co-screenplay credit — going back to, say, Francis Ford Coppola’s credit on “The Godfather,” which is an apt comparison, since “The Godfather” is the greatest American film since “Citizen Kane.” Mario Puzo contributed at least as much to that movie as Herman Mankiewicz did to “Kane,” yet no one begrudges Coppola’s contribution.
The issue with “Kane,” however, is that the contribution of writers was at that point habitually underrated. And Mankiewicz, in his script, aimed high. He deserved to be celebrated the way that “Mank” celebrates him. Yet Fincher’s film, in trying to salute Mankiewicz’s contribution, winds up echoing the Kael line and giving Orson Welles short shrift. He comes off as a petulant manipulator obsessed with lionizing himself. The film, in fact, would have done better to show us the genesis of “Kane”: the meetings that Welles and Mank first had about it, and how they sparked each other. Yet I understand, in a way, why Fincher didn’t include those scenes. He wanted it all to have a touch of mystery. It means something, I think, that the issue of who lit the creative fire of “Citizen Kane” is not something you can totally pin down. The chemistry of movies is more enigmatic than most of us know — more, even, than filmmakers know. We know, more or less, who wrote “Citizen Kane.” What we’ll never know is how the lightning got in the bottle. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 86 | https://cultcritic.co/boxoffice/titles/142376/citizen-kane | en | CC BOX OFFICE® | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | client/favicon/icon-144x144.png | null | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 70 | https://cinemaloversclub.com/citizen-kane-review | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://cinemaloversclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Color-logo-with-background.png",
"https://cinemaloversclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Color-logo-with-background.png",
"https://cinemaloversclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/cropped-White-logo-no-background.jpeg",
"https://i0.wp.com/cinemaloverscl... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Cinema Lovers Club"
] | 2021-02-17T23:58:00+00:00 | The Greatest Film Of All-Time, OW's new-age opera, political-drama, black comedy, mystery-noir, satirization, romance, & biography/psychological-pièta evolved ciné: complex, plot-eclectc, avant-garde metaphor of power, love, money, tragedy. 10/10. [category:all-time-favorites/drama/experimental/comedyromance/film-noir/psychological/italian-neorealisme/political-drama/mystery/classics,date:1941-02-17,rate:10,type:movies] ......... | en | Cinema Lovers Club | https://cinemaloversclub.com/citizen-kane-review | The Greatest Film Ever Made [& by a 24 year-old wünderkind], O.W.’s 1941 new-age opera, political-drama, black comedy, romance, satirization, & noir biographical/psychological-pièta changed everything, catalyzing a bloom-evolution of the history & artform of cinema; a complex, beautiful avant-garde metaphor of power, love, money, news, & tragedy. 10/10.
…
Plot Synopsis: When a reporter is assigned to decipher newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane’s (Orson Welles) dying words, his investigation gradually reveals the fascinating portrait of a complex man who rose from obscurity to staggering heights. Though Kane’s friend and colleague Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten), and his mistress, Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore), shed fragments of light on Kane’s life, the reporter fears he may never penetrate the mystery of the elusive man’s final word, “Rosebud.”
*Possible Spoilers Ahead*
Official CLC Review
The Greatest Film Of All-Time. Over 500,000+ movies have been made since Louis Le Prince & Eadweard J. Muybridge created the first motion picture using zoöpraxiscopes and glass discs to settle tavern wagers over the locomotion of animals back in the 1870’s – all desperately craving the crown and throne. The title breeds inevitable discourse across the cinematic world: from mafiaic undergrounds to whistle-tuned desert westerns to noir private-eyes to galaxy star-children. No other project title in history, though, evokes such a prestige, bone-chilled awe, depth of passion, and communal eulogization as one: Citizen Kane. A poverty-stricken film landscape and struggling RKO Pictures fueled the unimaginable in 1940: offering a 24-year old NYC wünderkind named Orson Welles a carte-blance & absolute creative freedom to make any picture of any genre with any cast – on any subject. The result of O.W. & his chosen lineup’s [headed by sardonic, acclimatized drunk-screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz] ambition with perilous endgame to hunt impossible sociopolitical game is a chef d’oeuvre masterpiece just as celebrated & immortalized nearly a century post-release. The project boasts the king mantle of ‘greatest film ever made’ by the ~complete-universe of critics, literary/academia publications, and pop-culture – holding 100% scores on both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, while being so complex and layered, it’s been analyzed-and-reanalyzed for generations with not an end in sight. The film changed everything for its artform – the biggest legacy in cinematic history, challenging every preconception of what cinema is, was, and will be and saving a dying medium by proving it can be literature, art, and music combined and as complex [or more] as Shakespearen theatre. Does it still hold up in 2021; does Citizen Kane still merit its hierarchical moniker as The ‘G.O.A.T.’? The answer: yes. The Greatest Film Ever Made [& by a 24 year-old wünderknd], OW’s 1941 new-age opera, political drama, black comedy, romance, satirization, & noir biographical/psychological-pièta changed the history of movies, catalyzing a cinematic bloom-evolution to the movie landscape we know today: a complex, layered, plot-eclectic, beautiful avant-garde metaphor of power, love, money, news, & tragedy.
The opening scene of Citizen Kane is the greatest ever filmed: a pure textbook showcase of cinematic technique and bravura optical intelligence able to lay important groundwork for the entire film without more than one single spoken-word. To pay homage to the classic, reverberate its avant-garde plot-structure, and because it’s packed with so much analyzable content, social-commentary, and hidden meanings/metaphor in every line & frame, we’re going to do this review differently than others here at CLC. A dichotomized review in two self-contained threads, one thread will be prefaced by Roman Numerals (I-XX) analyzing each major scene of the film and how it synergizes with others to elucidate the overall meaning of the film, and the other thread prefaced by Alphabetical Letters (A-I) will be a classicized film review analyzing the backstory, technique, innovations, cinematography, score, performances, direction, legacy, etc. Beginning with the opening flickers of film, the first shot that bludgeons our view is of a grimy sign with the words ‘No Trespassing’ zoomed-in so closely, it takes up nearly the entire frame. The cinematography, dusk-set sky of storm-clouds, and heavy chiaroscuro create a dark atmosphere of palpable dread – one whose score parallels its thematic [cimmerian] smokiness and caliginosity with spine-chilling, ominous strings. The shot begins to pan up the fence – highlighting its geometric shape with movement before bringing in rich slow-burn fades of other geometric gate/fence decorations to both disorientate and melt our senses into the environment, while also establishing themes of importance and ritzy opulence; only a very celebratized and wealthy figure could even afford to spend such endless resources on the gate outside his house. A dual-staged shot sees us outside the gate looking at the K family crest and larger-than-life castle in the distance: Xanadu – how far it is from us further highlighting the riches of its owner with miles of backyard, how much he/she values privacy, and how physically out-of-reach we are – a sharp difference of class-status & bourgeoise established solely by scale. The shot-cycling begins to further antagonize us with the impossible wealth of Xanadu: a private zoo, lake, golf-course, mountain, & more braggadocios impracticalities no homeowner could ever privately-own except in their wildest dreams/fantasy. However, cues in the audiovisual canvas [sharp, jagged edges and gothic architecture alongside a minor key woodwind score creating disharmonic cryptograms as they glide across the scales, alternated with deafening silence] paint a mystery through juxtaposition and atmosphere: why is everything presented with such a bleak and desolate view? Where is everyone? Where is the magnate owner of such palatial opulence? How could anyone ever be sad & alone in a place like this?
The backstory of Citizen Kane begins in The Mercury Theatre. Orson Welles was a prodigal rising star Hollywood had been trying to woo since the mid-1930’s after the breakout financial and critical success of his plays and The War Of The Worlds broadcast CBS radio series. Studios like Warner Bros. had offered multiple scripts and hand-invited him to make obscene amounts of money in the far-easier landscape of film than theatre – but O.W., like his own version of a young, idealistic Kane, couldn’t have cared less about the money and instead prioritized his burning passion/love for theatre. Financial trouble struck after a couple of his plays like Five Kings and The Green Goddess were not-as-well remunerated at the box-office [despite being critically-so], and Welles finally humored the incessant knocks at his door by Tinsel-Town elites out of necessity. The first studio tour he was taken on exposed Welles to a new cinematic world amongst the bright lights and rolling green hills of Los Angeles: what he called ‘the greatest electric train-set a boy ever had’ and fell head-over-heels in love with, having far more possibilities and endless budgets to make the masterpieces of his hyper-ambitious young mind [without such real-world limitations or considerations in the comparatively-small/dying theatre]. RKO Pictures offered him a blank-check contract with final cut privilege and absolute creative freedom – to the shock, controversy, and mock/ridicule of the cinematic world/press having never seen such a massive, risk-frought, groundbreaking contract.. & all on a first-time, unproven director. Official newspaper headlines called the move ‘laughable’ and ‘the biggest mistake any studio ever made.’ [Who’s laughing now?] The collaborator on the screenplay chosen by Welles was Herman J. Mankiewicz: a sardonic, acclimatized drunkard viewed as a washed-up has-been by the Hollywood landscape, but whom O.W. saw fleeting greatness within beneath the whiskey-breath and slurred exterior façade. Pitching the bold/groundbreaking idea to make a film about the life and psychology of one of the world’s richest and most famous men [who also happened to have been in Mankiewicz’ social-circle, before he grew to hate him after being exiled from his castle post-melée], Welles put a sniper lens on the hunt of impossible game: William Randolph Hearst.
The editing progressively brings us closer and closer to the one window light in the otherwise shadow-overwhelming, desolate canvas until we find ourselves right outside the window and the orchestration crescendoes. We see a man alone on his deathbed, clutching nothing and no one but a snow-globe of a wintery scene as his lips curl off a single word ‘Rosebud’ & his hand goes lifeless – leaving the globe to shatter as he dies to startle us with iconography and perplex our empathy and interests of who this mystery person is.. and why we should care? The scene is perhaps the most content-packed, thematically-complex, viewer-hooking, striking, and avant-garde in cinematic history – a piece that instantly evokes your sensibilities and draws you into the mystery while also being critical to understanding the film’s codex of ecosystemic innerworkings, establishing a non-linear plot structure from the opening second: telling the story from the end instead of the beginning. The bizarre double-take of the light in the window cutting off as the crescendo silences perhaps symbolized CFK’s death, connecting Xanadu and Kane synergistically by syncopation before taking us back inside his final moments [a proto-replay, if you will] to see what he told the world & us beyond the fourth-wall about himself in his dying breath. After the gloom and tragic despair of the previous scene, Citizen Kane reverses tone like a Mexican jumping bean to complete antithesization: a celebratory, jubilant news featurette doubling as a real-estate docufeature on the palace of Xanadu. Of critical importance here is that mentioned even before the man who owned it is his possession. The scene backgrounds the impossible building of a modern wonder of the world – a Florida gulf coast kingdom named after Kublai Khan as labor-intensive as the pyramids: 100,000 trees, 20,000 tons of marble, and the treasures of the world where money was no object. The acicularity of contrast between this hyperidealized, luxurious vision of Xanadu [what we’d imagine of its experience by preconceptions] and the real one we saw in the opening scene kickstarts multiple running themes throughout Citizen Kane: the futility and multi-reflexive moralization of the news, a caustic eschewal of capitalism, cynical nihilism of riches, & psychoanalysis of the incomplete puzzle and [ironically Christian-divergent against our core principles] point of view America takes on celebrities.
Though a principal source for Charles Foster Kane [hereby abbreviated: CFK or Kane] was never officially confirmed by the duo – claimed a synthesis of different personalities and life events from the giants of journalism like Pulitzer, Northcliffe, & Bayard and a few of Welles’ childhood business-tycoon friends like Insull and McCormick – it was clear to the world and press that Kane was referential to Hearst. Both CFK and Hearst: 1) were the sons of parents earning a fortune in mines, 2) attended Harvard before 3) getting expelled, 4) inherited newspapers they turned into empires with 5) yellow journalism [splashy headlines & sensationalism over true, objective reporting based on facts], 6) ran as leftist politicians ironically 7) promising as silver-spooners to be ‘champions for the working class’ but 8) failing to achieve elected office, 9) had scandalous romantic affairs with 10) showgirls whom they 11) used their news resources to try jumpstarting their entertainment careers, 12) used the word Rosebud [Hearst claimedly using it as a pet name for Davies & her genitalia], and most obviously: 13) built impossibly-grand kingdom estates on 14) thousands of coastal acres (California and Florida) over decades that 15) were never finished. News On The March satirized the journalistic style of The March Of Time docuseries, Walter P. Thatcher was based on J.P. Morgan, and the inspiration for Rosebud was born from a treasured childhood bicycle stolen from a young Mankiewicz [with the name also being from the famed racehorse he bet on at the 1914 Kentucky Derby, symbolizing his loss-of-innocence from that childhood carefree kid to meld with an overarching theme of Citizen Kane’s biggest symbolized mystery, as we’ll definitely explain later]. The wildfire that followed when news of this broke to the press is a circus just as theatrical, proving-of-concept, and entertaining as the film.
Sugar-coated simplification of complex, multi-faceted, diverse world problems into superficial tidbits spoon-feedable for the public has been a problem with the news for generations – one that’s only gotten 100X+ exacerbated by the instant gratification & TL:DR culture of The Social Media Age it’s a borderline miracle Citizen Kane was able to predict nearly a century ahead of its time [and is the reason I founded CLC in the first place]. The sequence begins meta-analysis of American capitalism: how we idol-worship celebrities, covet their possessions like Xanadu while proclaiming religious piety/holiness, prioritize what a man owned over his contributions and good paid towards society, and overequate money as a cure-all medicine to solve all problems – when it’s not always that simple. This is all done contemporaneously as the film introduces its prismatized protagonist: Charles Foster Kane. The newspaper headlines exaggerate and sensationalize with bold audacity that ‘the entire nation mourns the death of an outstanding American and sponsor of democracy; the greatest newspaper tycoon of this or any other generation after a lifetime of service. This laughable puff-piece editorial clearly-satirical in farcical tone and disingenuous (as we’ll learn from the rest of the film) further establishes the futility and exploitable propaganda-machine of the news, while reverberating how society does celebrate people like this CFK over [truly] outstanding Americans who actually do give lifetimes of service like doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc. without ever a headline or thank you. This isn’t a localized phenomenon either; civilizations across the world engage in the same self/sociologically-destructive behavior [as hinted by the splice-montage of headlines in various languages from Japanese to Egyptian to Italian] that psycho-conditions us to wow at the wrong things; America just does it far more than most as the perfect stage for the allegorical tale of Charles Foster Kane. The film shifts gear once again from a Greek tragedy opening to documentarian real estate news vignette to semi-autobiographical piece chronicling the rise-and-fall of the capitalist bourgeoise newspaper-tycoon billionaire.
The pre-release controversy of Citizen Kane only further italicizes the magnitude of its achievement, real-world implications, and artistic significance. Orson Welles knew the film would send shock-waves throughout the industry and world by the Moby Dick-sized whale they were hunting like Cpt. Ahab – so he kept access & publicity strictly-limited to the bare minimum required by studio execs and contract. A private, credentialed screening for members of the press was infiltrated by an uninvited columnist working for a paper in Hearst’s news conglomerate by the betrayal of someone involved with the film [a noir/spy-like gritfest in real-life] – and she immediately recognized the sharp-edged satirization and references to her boss. The only one to give it a negative review amongst the critics at-presence, she ran an article highlighting point-by-point comparisons between CFK & WRH before threatening a lawsuit if the film were to be released. News got to Hearst – who enacted the Old Testament fiery-wrath of an unforgiving God and iron fist of a dictatorial and tyrannical/corrupt megalomaniac: commanding every newspaper of his conglomerate of hundreds or thousands to ban any mention or promotion of Citizen Kane or RKO Pictures. To give an idea of the power & influence William Randolph Hearst had over the public, he ~single-handedly (along with a racism-fearmongering Harold Anslinger) ran a smear campaign against marijuana to protect his interests/investments in the timber industry that experts attribute to the lasting delegalizing of the drug even today in the 2020’s worldwide – over half a century later by the commandments of one man. When power-abuse and media-shaming failed to douse the fiery ambitions of Welles & co., WRH resorted to blackmail with threats to expose the private lives of people throughout RKO/Welles’ circles and film studios alike – plus threats to ruin the reputation of any theatre deciding to premiere or show the film.
The ~10 minute NOTM backstory of Charles Foster Kane is loaded with so much subtext and hidden metaphor/meaning, it could be its own film – and serves the purpose of an origin one, outlining and synopsizing the major events of CFK’s entire life so that the rest of the film is free of plot-shackles and able to go wherever and whenever it wants to put a finer lens. The newsreel frames Kane as The Ultimate American: The American Dream personified; the rags-to-riches story we should all bow down to and one day aspire to become like. From humble beginnings in Colorado, he grows up the son of a boardinghouse keeper coming into a supposedly-worthless deed to an abandoned mine-shaft – one stricken with hidden gold. The sudden extreme wealth sees his parents give Kane up for psuedo-adoption to a wall-street businessman to learn his ways, one he physically-assaults with a sled on their first acquaintance [extremely important symbolism later-on]. Nevertheless, he’s powerless as a child to obey his parents’ wishes – later building his inheritance into an empire of 27 newspapers, two syndicates, a radio network, grocery stores, paper mills, apartment complexes, factories, etc. reaching from coast to coast. The puff-piece editorial previously-outlined becomes more grounded in reality here – exposition on both the good and [shockingly]-bad of Kane on his stance-taking/partnerships on every public issue for 40+ years. He fights for low-income families against the wealthy one-second, and sips tea with world leaders like Hitler another: extremely complex moral dichotomization that only further-fuels our blazing intensity of fascination with him while establishing the importance of the figure through association to some of history’s most powerful and infamous men he breaks bread with. The brilliance of Charles Foster Kane as a protagonist owes major credit to Orson Welles’ performance: the most impressive multi-achievement in cinematic history in his directing/acting/writing/producing/etc. hats for every role behind-the-scenes. The ability to play a man throughout his entire life [young to old; adolescence to deathbed] like he does in this one film is a miracle of thespianship – even more impressive given his age of only being 24 years old, barely a man himself tasked with the herculean labor of understanding life and humanity from a God-like omniscience perspective, when he delivered Citizen Kane to screen.
The looming apocalypse of studios and execs being exposed to the general public [their customer-base, which WRH showed proof he wasn’t bluffing on by running a story that studios were profiting off free labor by immigrants without fulfilling promises to pay them afterwards] led to even the biggest sharks and presidents of the cinematic world coming forward. MGM patriarch/founder Louis B. Mayer hand-offered RKO & Welles ~$1M [today: $20M+] personally to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative to wipe it from existence. Though RKO refused, they started to feel the hot grips of panic and doubt of whether they made the right decision backing their prize racehorse – violating their contract’s promises of non-interference by frequently sending spies onto the set whom were supposed to report back updates on what they saw to gauge the risk mitigation. O.W. and the cast kept sharp eyes out for the 007-esque secret-agents, and would cease shooting to play softball every time they found one until they left. One RKO spy managed to evade detection long enough to slip between the seams and steal a copy of the Citizen Kane script, which they subsequently leaked to the press: the ultimate cinematic sin and slap-of-the-face of a film crew/director, perhaps to soften the blow – more so, a spite of O.W. The director responded by further-trolling and revengefully provoking the news and circus: the long-awaited trailer for the cinematic event of the decade thrown to the pack of ravenous wolves salivating after months of silence.. didn’t feature even a single second of footage of the actual film itself: an original, tongue-in-cheek, behind-the-scene five [sic] minute pseudo-doc conjuring on the film’s production with trick-shots and studio-introductions instead of any narrative material or footage. Talk about revenge and god-tier trolling a near-century before memes, GIFs, or any tools internet heathens use today. Real-world dystopia like a sci-fi film, hijinx/satire like a comedy, secret agent stealth missions like a spy thriller, and fear-based corruption like a political drama paved way to horror if the real-world genres Citizen Kane faced weren’t enough – when WRH’s rage at not getting what he wanted [likely, for the first time in his life] opened a Pandora’s Box in the trenches. On his way home from a speaking engagement after studio-time one day, Welles was notified by police not to go back to his hotel. A malicious frame-plot involving a little girl trapped in the closet was waiting for him there, according to intel & witnesses, to decimate the name, legacy, and career of Orson Welles before Citizen Kane could ever make it to-screen. The plot thickens!
The regal authoritarian presence, booming thunder of a voice built for teleprompters, robust comportment, and clean-cut opulence of a news-ready banker’s smile with a hearty chuckle make you both love and hate him at the same time – one of the most indescribable chemically-equilibrized mixes of a performance I’ve ever seen on-screen. The characterization is just as complex and dichotomized: the newsreel claims ‘few lives were more public’, but there’s a lot going on behind-the-scenes. Thrice married and twice divorced, the timeline and personal life of CFK are extremely-suspicious – hiding dots just-enough-connectable without outright proof to limitlessly provoke our curiosities. His first wife divorcing him in 1916, then dying of a sudden motor-accident with their son in 1918 implies a frightening plausibility: did Kane’s superiority complex and lust-for-control lead him to order a hit on his ex-wife, with his child as a casualty or even.. fellow-target? Two weeks later remarrying a showgirl named Susan Alexander, the turnaround without ostensible grief/mourn gives further credence to the ghastly conspiracy above – while adding a scandalous affair that makes him lose the governorship of Kansas with The White House next-in-view by a wife perhaps being the one to leak the story and turn CFK’s own vehicle/weapon against him: the press. The tragedy of being divorced again after flaunting his money and building his opera singer Suzie her own opera house in Chicago at a cost of $3M ($56,000,000+ in 2021, adj. inflation) and the palace of Xanadu at hundreds of millions somehow evokes pity and empathy in the pith of our souls & hearts for a man with everything on paper – a man many of us thought we’d give anything to be like at the beginning of the scene. Three important themes are hinted lightly here to be further-developed later: money vs. love, abandonment, and childhood-trauma. Does CFK hate divorce and abandonment so much because it brings him back to that childhood pain and event of his parents giving him up for adoption? Can money buy happiness and love, or does it shield/falsify it for us? All of these questions linger on the palate as the featurette comes full-circle back to where we started: Xanadu on the dusky night of the death of Kane before it cuts black – leaving exponentially-more questions than answers of who is and what happened to Charles Foster Kane?
One night shortly after the ploy failed and the movie was days away from release, a documented chance-encounter between Orson Welles & William Randolph Hearst in an elevator at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco pit the two archenemies and their egos/tension in a box merely feet-wide. Welles wryly offered him a ticket to opening night of Citizen Kane, to which he never responded and couldn’t even look him in the eye. As WRH got off on his floor after perhaps the most humiliating and humbling experience the world’s most powerful man ever had, Welles said one final line to him as the elevator closed: “Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.” The kaleidoscopic mix of real-world genres Kane went through en route to the big-screen is just as packed, diverse, and extensive as the film itself – the craziest backstory in the history of movie: one we hope gets its own movie made one day outside the perspective of the film itself and proof of the validity of every psychoanalytical and social-commentary point the film makes on the machination of the news & William Randolph Hearst. The trench-warfare Citizen Kane experienced in its journey to release made the premiere of this David v. Goliath miracle the greatest triumph of artistic freedom in moviemaking when it finally opened at the RKO Palace Theater on Broadway in New York City on May 1, 1941. Kane failed at the box office by the looming shadow of its patriarch’s influence and strong-arm corruption tactics on any theater or company talking about the film – but, without its herculean bravery and intensity of strength/conviction to not bend in the face of unfathomable adversity, cinema would never have evolved and become what it is today; a savior’s parable. Not the slightest bit of an exaggeration or superlative, movies could have remained nothing more than toys or propaganda-vehicles for the rich, famous, and powerful – and the fact it’s now an artform of artistic depth and 500,000+ films of every kind, genre, demographic, and orientation we have to majorly attribute ~singularly to Citizen Kane.
After the newsreel concludes and fourth-wall is broken to take us into a backroom mini-theatre of newspaper editors watching the same vignette-reel we just did, one man sparks a discussion on the merit of the segment. The cinematography in this sequence is impeccable – proto-noir ocular majesty by its heavy chiaroscuro, deep-focus mise-en-scene, atmospheric light/smoke so thick-you-could-cut-it-with-a-knife, and tricky shadow-play as the editors are both physically and metaphorically in the dark about who Kane really was. The depth and analytical perspective of the N.O.T.M. is criticized – one man named Thompson emerges, vowing to go beyond the superficial newspaper headlines ‘everyone knows’ on which the newsreel predominantly focuses. This is one of the few positive representations of journalism in the entire film; he nails the driving principle and raison d’être of true journalistic reporting and writing: ‘it’s not enough to know what a man did, who was he?’. The angle and pivot he cleverly thesisizes to decipher the codex-puzzle of Charles Foster Kane is his dying final word’s meaning: Rosebud. Going hard-boiled detective mode straight out of Dick Tracy comics, the film shifts genres yet again [after a twinge of black comedy/satire in the line ‘Rosebud: it’s probably something very simple!’ (Yeah, not so much.)] with a booming thunderbolt lightning-clap used as cover-transition for a startling buzzsaw jump-cut to a larger-than-life mural of Susan Alexander Kane atop her new nightclub in the rain-soaked cityscape. The fast-pan over the top of the building by the El Rancho Nightclub sign through a rooftop window into the lounge of a washed-up alcoholic Ms. Kane below is perhaps the first [& best] establishment of the aesthetics of the genre of film-noir in cinematic history: heavy rain, neon-signs, chiaroscuro, xylophonic and flute minor-keys, and thematization of private eye detectives investigating grimy, sinful venues aestheticized with crime, sex, murder, mystery, and the dark edges of humanity. Though films in the 1930’s had proto-noir characteristics like The Maltese Falcon, Crime And Punishment, M, Pépé Le Moko, The Beast Of The City, etc., none truly defined and fueled a resurgence of its popularity beyond the fringes of indies like Kane – and an argument can certainly be made that it should be regarded as the founder defining what we know the genre as today. The introduction to Susan Alexander Kane is a phenomenal one – the bitter snarl of Dorothy Comingore’s performance as the vehemently-rude drunkard wallowing in self-pity [humorously-dichotomized by Will Alland’s fizzy, effervescent Mr. Thompson] is sensational: further evocative of our curiosities of why a divorced woman given everything by Mr. Kane has turned to substance-abuse to drown her ostensible pain and sorrows.
The Greatest Character In Movie History, Citizen Kane’s portraiture of its central emperor of newsprint is one for the textbooks and ages – like being in the presence of God, hand-crafting a perfectly-cinematized painting of a man’s life & everything about him in 1hr59min. A child playing in the snowy winter of Colorado is put up for adoption to a bank against his will, and his life is never again the same. The core-stricken tragedy and traumatization of that event shapes the rest of Charles Foster Kane’s life: he grows up alone and isolated, internalizing self-worth doubts and trust issues without a real guardian or the love of parents before inheriting a fortune he doesn’t want on his 25th birthday. Rebuking every penny of it except for a newspaper he flips as a weapon to attack the institution responsible for his life’s woes, the rich and powerful are hunted by CFK’s The Inquirer as their newspaper-circulation grows by honest, grassroots journalism reverberated by Kane’s handwritten declaration of principles/morality to ‘always fight for the average joe and little guy’ [symbolically-representative of him as a child]. The drug of money, fame, and notoriety poison the veins of that plucky, charming, suave, principled Young Mr. Kane and his editorial staff – & he begins to change, eventually becoming the fatcat capitalist villain he so vehemently opposed and promised he’d never become. The Jekyll-turned-Hyde transformation begets tragedy in facets in stark juxtaposition to the material luxury driving [& ruining] his life: rejection by lovers, the public through politics, and his friends – eventually rewriting his newspaper’s raison-d’être as dishing out types of corruption and fake-news by the complete loss of everything he once stood for. Finally, with no one left besides Suzie, his God-complex tries to fabricate a world of his own at Xanadu filled with only lifeless statues [symbolized of his ignorance of how to love/trust, preferring slabs of marble that look like people, but are metaphorically-and-physically without heads and free-will to betray him] he can rule along with her over in a dictatorial monarchy mired in tragedy, pain, childhood-trauma, and the cruelty of fate. This is Godlike character-development of a tier you simply won’t see in any other film ever made – brought to life by a perfect performance and echoed by the rest of Citizen Kane’s cast.
The suicidal-depths of behavior and erratic rebukes of any conversations to before Charles died, when she’d been reported by employees [humorously getting their memory jogged by crisp dollar bills in classic noir black comedy sin] as ‘just as soon talking about him as anyone – even sooner’, further draws us into the existential intrigue/complexity of their relationship: if she loves and mourns him, why’d she divorce and speak ill of him beforehand? The revelation that even Kane’s own wife doesn’t know what Rosebud is similarly fuels and adds depth to the mystery guiding the film. If this is a secret so deeply-entrenched in a person’s psyche, they’d hide it from a wife they built the biggest castle ever-made & a $56M+ operahouse for, it must go back to childhood or family – Thompson’s next stop. The Walter P. Thatcher Memorial Library is a grand, cold, sterile, plain/unimaginative, marble-laden spectacle farcically-exaggerated by the clever use of echo-distortion of its receptionist’s and Thompson’s voices and fitting for the personality-deprivation of its patriarch banker. Finally getting to the unpublished memoirs of Thatcher [further-mystery as to why they went unpublished even post-death: perhaps forbade by Kane’s legal iron-fist? Perhaps out of guilt?], we’re detailed his first encounter with Mr. Kane on a snowy day back in Colorado in 1871. A 5 year-old CFK frolics in bliss on a winter morning of childlike innocence and not a care in the world: sledding, snowball-fighting, and building snowmen in a canvas of visuals and score that feel almost like a cartoon or Christmas-special in how sugar-coatedly happy/celebratory it is. Unbeknownst to the cavorting youngster having the time of his life, a sinister plot amongst the worst that can ever happen to a child is being mechanized by his parents backstage: consideration of giving him up for adoption – worse, to the farthest thing from a parent: a fatcat banker-capitalist named Walter P. Thatcher. The dichotomization of the best and worst days of CFK’s life happening synchronically mere feet away from each other is highlighted by a masterpiece shot of cinematography and movie-innovation by Toland, ASC: staging both antithetical scenes in different planes of view within the same frame so we can see both scenes happening at the same time. Perhaps commenting on how life and one’s world can change in the flick of an instant by the cruel hand of fate, the inevitable dark prospectus on the horizon uncomfortably approaches as we view the pure cowardice of its parents’ conversation and paperwork.
The performance of Orson Welles is a life achievement. Being only 24 years-old and also the writer/director/producer of the film, it’s a damn cinematic miracle one man was blessed with such multi-talents – he hits every note of the ensemble beyond the touch of directors 2-3x his age and with absolute perfection, foremost in acting. The herculean task of playing a character throughout their entire life was – and, is even today – a ludicrous proposition for one actor, rarely-if-ever asked: an impossible task solely plausible by homework to capture the physicality and nuance of things like old age while still in youth, without life experience to have experienced anything like it. The young, clean-cut, suave, charming boy-wonder straight out of college dripping with energy wanting to start a newspaper to fight injustice to the grandiose, booming-voice, thunderous presence of a mid-career politician magnate succumbed to the temptations and delusions of money/power to the frail, hopelessly-alone old man mourning the simplicity and loss of yesteryears are all beautifully painted: entirely different characters even antithetical of one another Welles plays flawlessly – with surgical precision and theatrical thespian pedigree. The rest of the performances are just as sensational; Citizen Kane boasts a once-in-a-lifetime cast & characterization canvas of stars-aligned it’s borderline-impossible was filled by new actors/resses to the screen. Dorothy Comingore’s performance as Suzie Alexander Kane is the masterpiece alongside Welles’ – just as diverse and characterizationally life-long, going from the delicate, feathery, compassionate, effervescent Bronx-talky showgirl and chemistry-fizzy love interest to shrill, angry, suicidal public-slave of CFK singing operatic hymns pleading the gods to strike her down to the alcoholic woe and snarling bitterness we first see her with alone at the El Rancho nightclub. George Couloris is perhaps the shining cinematic example of a snooty, privileged, proper fatcat banker capitalist, Will Alland’s Mr. Thompson the perfect journalist placeholder for audience experience overflowing with charisma and wisecracking jokes to lighten the heaviness of the journey, Everett Slone a humorous and loyal right-hand man, Agnes Moorehead a cold mother ice in her veins but twinges of motherly care, Joseph Cotten the heavy-hitting best friend turned public enemy and emblematic reminder of CFK’s fall from grace, etc. The fact such a cast of diversification and breathtaking character-balance/development was crafted from a series of first-times to movies plays by the rules of Italian Neorealisme, while breaking the ones of Hollywood: proving the greatest performances can come from anywhere, not just the mansions of L.A.
The inexorably-dark, morbid, offensive brutality of the idea is recognized by Harry Shannon’s drunk/rugged-yet-caring Mr. Kane, belligerently-rebuking Agnes Moorehead’s frigid, ice-cold mother as old-fashioned and conservatively-rigid as her hairstyle. Presented as a villain even colder than the winter day outside putting a price on her child with barely a hint of emotion or facial expression, Mary Kane ignores the cries of her husband’s spot-on analysis we echo in the crowd: this being wrong and ‘a banker being no substitute for a mom and dad’ [even effectively making us hate her by having the audacity to dismiss the argument as ‘nonsense’] and signs to give Thatcher custody in exchange for 50k/year for them for life. The religious iconography and twisted allegory in this scene is breathtaking: a mother named Mary sells her boy-child to a money-crazed, sweet-talking, and expensively/ornately-dressed man with a contract. This could be re-interpreted and packs the existential power of a ‘what if’ scenario of The Virgin Mary selling Jesus Christ as a child to the Devil – supported by details like the suspicious name-sharing of its mothers, namelessness of the fathers in the scene, and well-established pop culture imagery/urban-legend of the devil being connected to banks & using contracts/money to steal souls and first-born children. The power of money plays a big role in the scene – even pacifying Kane Sr. when the amount of money is stated out-loud, driving the betrayal of unfathomable proportions [even though he still objects in powerlessness to his wife’s will, being the owner of the mine/wealth in her name]. As she’s signing the papers, there’s a hint of sorrow in her voice and eyes as Moorehead’s performance and the dynamic shifts – finally displaying some regret and forlorn self-resentment as she reveals some clashing details in sharp juxtaposition to the evil figure we saw for a character as complex as CFK. Revealed is that she’s had his trunk packed for a week, calls out in mother tone to ‘be careful’ of the cold and ‘keep his scarf on’, and leaves the inheritance and principal of the company’s monies in a trust-fund for Charles to be opened on his 25th birthday – reframing the act as perhaps one of [misguided] love and ignorance. Newly-rich, maybe the weight of the pressure of having all that money convinces her to seek a guardian who is well-versed in the subject and knows how to be a rich gentleman in society – something that would be difficult for low-class Coloradoans like the Kanes to even be able to fake amongst the high society now merited by their net worth.
The chip-on-shoulder hunger and youthful tenacity by the cast to prove wrong the critics and naysayers doubting their resumé/abilities is tangible – paralleling The American Dream & underdog ambitions, as well as a major theme throughout the rest of the film’s architects behind-the-scenes. The veritable encyclopedia of techniques and pioneering avant-garde stylistics in Citizen Kane include: deep-focus cinematography, chiaroscuro lighting, temporal jump-cuts, ceiling shot considerations, flashback-dominant storytelling rejecting linear/chronological narratives to reimagine storytelling through multiple divergent POV’s, omniscient perspective only in the beginning and end scenes with personable/unreliable narration between, vignettes, cigarette burns, overlapping montages, panchromatic film, and newsreel footage outlining the highlights of its protagonist’s life story from birth to death at the beginning of the story – only to fill in the gaps later-on. The film is perhaps the most technically-diverse of cinematic history: an achievement even more impossible by the comparatively-nescient time in movie progression to work with and outright-lunacy of being a one-try, freehand masterstroke by a new directorial prodigal son in his first-ever outing on the big-screen. Imagine painting Van Gogh’s ‘Starry Night’ the first time you ever held a paintbrush, scoring Beethoven’s ‘Ninth Symphony’ the first time you ever pressed a piano key, or writing ‘The Iliad & The Odyssey’ having never written a book before: that’s the equivalent of how insane the accomplishment of Citizen Kane is. Ignorance being bliss, Welles’ naïvety of cinematic preconceptions and Hollywood/directorial customs-and-traditions proved to be his emancipation – profiting off his previous theatrical experience, stylistic flamboyance, and attention-to-detail to translate them to a new, bigger canvas he nevertheless paid extensive research/analysis.
Perhaps Ms. Kane truly believes this will be best for him in the long-term no matter how tough it is now, deluded by fantasies of the rich-and-famous/bourgeoisie panderative to Marxist proletariats and the scary prospect of raising a child in a new reality out of your comfort-zone/experience. Of course, there’s also the possibility the Kanes just gave him up out of selfishness to enjoy their money for the next 20+ years without having to raise Charles – supported by the fact they didn’t even try to see if they could raise him to be a fine young man who just happens to have money, and the fact he’s so young. The real motivations and benevolence/morality of the scene are left ambiguous and up to the multiple interpretations as the conclusion finally reaches: how to tell a young child that they’re leaving forever and will never see their parents again. The reaction of CFK is heartbreaking: palpable disgust, fear, and anger escalating into physical assault of Thatcher with his sled [extremely important symbolism for later exposition]. As if the dynamic wasn’t complex enough, Kane Sr. threatens Charles with a ‘good ol’ thrashing’ for his outlandish and rude [yet understandable] behavior – and the statement by Mary of ‘that’s why Charles is going to be raised in a place where you can’t get at him’ while she hugs him implies this a regular occurrence or pattern, further calling into question our preconceptions. The scene exemplifies the film’s master-craftsmanship of being able to flip characters developmentally with surgical precision/touch and create impossible-decisions/scenarios: here eviscerating our first reactions by reframing Kane Sr. from hero to villain and Mary from villain to hero, while letting both be partially-correct with no clear solution of what to do about Charles Foster Kane. The time-lapse of snow piling on the sled outside Kane Boardinghouse, graphic-matched to a Christmas present of a new sled for an uncaring CFK is spliced mid-sentence into a fast-forward/jump-cut of 20+ years: one of the most ambitious and unheard-of editing progressions in cinematic history.
Rumors of O.W. having film textbooks delivered to him on-set and watching such works as The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, Stagecoach, & the films of Frank Capra, Fritz Lang, King Vidor, John Ford, and Jean Renoir with studio-execs and technicians who worked on them to ask how/why things were done paint a young man with unbridled ambition to learn the medium. The work-ethic was never-before-seen – according to reports, Welles spending 16-18 hours/day on set from 5AM to nighttime [including weekends, when most hollywood fatcats would be passed out in their multi-million dollar hillside mansions with a bottle of hennessy hungover with their own Suzie besides them]. It got to the point that he would be the only car parked in the studio-lot and be only greeted by security-guards on night-shift at the insane hours he worked: the legwork to achieve a masterpiece refreshingly more like a military bootcamp than the glitz, glamour, and egocentrism of classical Hollywood. The big dreams of the director went so far as to reject the usage of master shots because he had learned his idol John Ford never used them – almost impossible and unheard of at the time [master shots being historically the most important shot of any scene of a film beforehand, recording an entire dramatized scene from a camera angle that kept all players in view so as to function as an establishing shot and foundational camera coverage] only rebuked by a master of the craft with decades of experience this first-time director wanted to emulate. This is, quite literally, the cinematic equivalent of first learning to ride a bike at the tour-de-france.. down a hill.. without training wheels – and it’s matched by reports that Welles frequently demanded perfection of the cast and himself in a clockwork-mechanized studio schedule, requiring rehearsal on your own time so as to capture scenes in one take without reshoots. The techniques in Citizen Kane might not be the first-times they were ever used: deep-focus, chiaroscuro, and temporal jump-cuts being found in German Expressionist films of the 1920’s, VFX in the films of Méliès, ceiling shots in von Stronheim’s 1925 Greed, newsreel montages by Dziga Vertov, flashbacks in 1933’s The Power & The Glory, etc. Kane was the first one with the balls to bring them all together simultaneously and perfect each, though: deserving credit for giving them meaning & cinematic life historically.
The earliest possible symptoms point to CFK’s eschewal of money/materialism and prioritization of fun. On the telegram-proclamation of his 25th birthday and inheritance of the sixth largest private fortune in the world [one 99% of us would gladly accept, or think we’d be happy with] Charles Foster Kane writes back none of the enterprises ‘interest’ him but The Inquirer – only because ‘it’d be fun to run a newspaper’ as a ghastly-faced Thatcher elicits laughs from us in the audience. At 25, CFK is still bright-eyed, rebellious, pugnacious, immature, and fun-minded – much like his childhood-self, perhaps signifying he was developmentally-stunted by the psychological trauma of that Colorado day. This goes even farther: the projects of The Inquirer almost exclusively attack big corporationalism and business – true underdog journalism to hold the rich & powerful accountable, and which can be seen as the ultimate flex rebuke/rejection of the position he was put in as a kid; he attacks the institution that took him away and everything Thatcher stands for out-of-spite and revenge in the most unforgiving way possible: public humiliation to a growing worldwide audience, flipping the voicelessness and powerlessness he had as a kid to a weapon: absolute brilliance of characterization, screenwriting, farcical-satire, and psychology by Mankiewicz. CFK embraces his own duality and fractured-psyche here to make Thatcher’s [& the likes of Thatchers around the world] life a living hell – pure comedy as the film shifts genres once again. The rebelliousness and FU attitude Kane displays is something we see a lot in 21st Century tech/media companies & start-ups today, nearly a century beforehand as it’s revealed he was expelled from ‘lots’ of colleges and and doesn’t seem to give a damn about anyone or anything besides his crux of a personal compass. The mission he wears like a heart on his sleeve of ‘protecting the hard-working, small-business Americans of the community because they haven’t got a voice for themselves’ is personal and applicable to himself metaphorically: he as a man is now protecting the helpless and beaten-by-life/fate he once was, realistic vigilantism of the types straight out of a comic book hero origin. This ‘philanthropic’ enterprise is even revealed to be costing the young Kane $1M/year, but plans to continue it anyways – flexing his money like a young Bruce Wayne/Batman [a year post-creation of the pop culture icon].
The most diverse and hyper-ambitious film ever made, Citizen Kane is a new-age opera, political-drama, black comedy, romance, satirization, & noir biographical/psychological-pièta, all in the same 2-hour movie perfectly-achieving each one of its genres in a flawlessly-blended mixture. This is not only the textbook film of any cinephile’s or critic’s dream technique-wise, but also genre-wise – the exemplification of how to alchemize flavors to create new blends & cocktails of movies and film I would first recommend to anyone looking to get into film analysis. Beyond, the most innovative technical aspect/fundamental of Citizen Kane – as we begin to go criterion-by-criterion – is its avant-garde cinematography style. Toland, ASC was the one veteran in the film’s crew of newcomers and hungry youth in their 20-30’s: a makeshift father-figure for Welles and the still ~immature group of importance & experience: cited amongst the top cinematographers in the world at the time. Being procured only because of the coverage of a first-time director – giving him opportunities to try new experimentalist styles no established name would co-sign, Toland lived up to that promise 10x over. The cinematography signature of Citizen Kane is its extended use of deep focus: staging the foreground, background, and everything in-between all in sharp focus at the same time, a new once-in-a-generation development in the science of motion pictures he called ‘pan-focus’. The masterstroke achievement gave the experimental camera-lens the ability to see an entire panorama in-view/focus at once with everything clear and lifelike – akin to the anatomically-complex lens of the human eye for a prismatic level of realism and evolution of cinema stylistically. O.W. praised Toland’s innovation while demanding more – pushing low-angle shots by their dynamic look/feel, extreme close-ups, mise-en-scène, and challenging studio conventions of foregoing ceiling shots by constantly craning the camera upwards [correcting what he viewed as bad theatre, pretending a ceiling was there when it was really fabric concealing microphones]. Welles demanded hyper-realism and wanted the camera to see real room, shots, and geometric angles as we do – also spicing up the interiors of sets. Perry Ferguson’s art direction and set design was created with O.W. by rough draft-sketches being made into miniature models experimented on through periscope to perfect each shot beforehand.
As the plot-structure becomes increasingly avant-garde, we’re tossed around in ~anti-chronological vignettes breaking every narrative rule of cinema and challenging the viewer to stitch the plot together out-of-order – each vignette of importance to solving the puzzle of Charles Foster Kane, too. After the snow-day tragedy and coming-of-age shenanigans [both establishing CFK’s hatred for Mr. Thatcher, one that’s never resolved], we jump to 1929 and The Great Depression. The recession and bankruptcy wave hits Kane’s empire and syndicates hard – to the enjoyment of Thatcher at the expense of Kane Jr.’s misfortunes. Multiple lines in the dialogue here are very important: Kane tells Thatcher ‘you’re too old and were always too old’ [not speaking to his physical age, being only 20’s-to-30’s when he adopted CFK, but his personality age of a boring banker he couldn’t confide or reconcile friendship within], never made investments but only used money to ‘buy things’ [indicative of an addiction to the transactional and instant-gratification natures of money – critical in understanding the psychology of Kane in how the mindset later soaks into his personal relationships and multifaceted downfall], cries he always ‘gagged on the silver spoon’, bemoans he ‘might’ve been a great man if he hadn’t been rich’ but thinks he did okay under the circumstances, and responds to Thatcher’s question of what he’d like to have become if he hadn’t gotten his fortune so young with ‘everything you hate’. The unmistakable establishment of someone with such a revulsive abhorrence of money continues, but there are hints he’s become partially dependent on; the idea of having to sell or lose inheritance money to Thatcher would’ve rolled like water off a duck’s back to the young CFK, but here: there’s a melancholy in the atmosphere like he’s ~disappointed and introspective woe-is-me that unspools a lot of subconscious string – as well as being one of the only times Kane actually laments and physically-references his past/backstory on-screen. The film briefly detours into more comedy as a present-day, disgruntled Mr. Thompson begins to even asks even random secretaries and security guards if they ‘happen to be [mythical] Rosebud’ & transitions to interviewing is closest circle. The crotchety old Mr. Bernstein [there before the beginning of Kane’s rise and after the end of Kane’s fall] posits it must be a girl or lost-love, while wisely parabolizing that ‘money’s easy to make if all you care about is making money’ like Mr. Thatcher but Kane was never about making money. The man being an enigma even in death to two of the closest branches on his tree of life, Bernstein suggests Leland – Kane’s best friend since the beginning, and one who grew up what Kane ‘wanted to be’: poor and carefree. The revelation of Leland’s backstory is just-as-dark [if not more so], his previously-rich father shooting himself in the head out of debt – again highlighting the dark side of money and its grip on the poor souls it catches in its web, the key words of the description being ‘one of those situations’ like Bernstein sees them often.
Of course, Xanadu is its own masterpiece achievement – a mixture of Gothic and Renaissance stylistic elements perversely juxtaposing incongruous architectural motifs to satirize and thematically-parallel the labyrinthine of Hearst’s mind through his castle. RKO cut the film’s budget by 1/3 mid-filming – what would be a fatal blow to most crews but a stroke Kane’s worked through to shoot around and stage different pieces of the pre-made 106 sets/miniatures to give the impression grandeur and the multi-billion $ paradisiac castle it appears on-screen: majestic, opulent, and visually-sumptuous by ocular trickery. The editing is just as much a character in the film as any of its cast: boundary pushes by Robert Wise and Mark Robson [who would both go on to become prominent directors later themselves]. The detailed instructions O.W. left them on each scene gave the perfect fragments to stitch together: bones they infused with flesh and life by stylistic transitions to collapse time and space. Slow-dissolves signify long passages of time and their psychological effects on the characters, episodic sequences on the same set see characters change only costume/make-up between shots like the transition packed years between a singular cut, and other techniques like cigarette-burns, curtain-wipes, and whip-pans maximize expressiveness and vicissitude. The lack-of-coverage by the presence of no master shots made ‘in-camera’ editing easier too , and the film typically favors mise-en-scène over montage – a bold evolution of cinematic worldview O.W. provoked by things like jarring cuts of wild contrast in the opening deathbed of Kane to News On The March and breakfast sequence chronicling 16 years of [progressively-devolving] marriage into two minutes of rhythmically-cycling screentime. The make-up/VFX are yet another work of pure cinematic witchcraft for the time. Not only is experimentation with optical printer VFX trick-elements by Dunn avant-garde to catalyze major changes post-production – but as is its extrapolation of miniatures to look real by scale considerations, matte-shots, and rear-screen projection in the background of scenes. These cutting-edge stylistics can be found, for example, in the ocean background at Xanadu when it was shot land-locked and when Suzie tries to commit suicide [the foreground shot with the background dark, then vice-versa and the film rewound to put all action physically spliced together in-frame].
The cinnamon swirl of a plot/tonal structure flashes back from forlorn remembrance to [momentary] joy once again as we jump like a cat on a hot tin roof back to the youth-energized, slapstick/joke-filled startup venture of The Inquirer. The meaning of the eponymous title of the movie is also revealed by CFK’s declaration of principles – a personal promise he hand-writes and plasters on the front page of the newspaper to always tell the news honestly, without special party interests/interference & be a champion of the people and their rights as citizens [humbling himself to the level of Citizen Kane, rebuking the privilege, wealth, aristocratic/upper-class status, and silver spoon status his family title gives him to try to be one of them]. Touching as it is representative of Kane’s burning desire for love/acceptance, the scene paints a warm, jovial, slightly-rotund Robin Hood-esque CFK it’s certainly easy to get behind as a protagonist – the scene bolstered by audiovisual cues like the blasting of light from NYC windows on cloudless days and cavorting, silly-horns juxtaposed with light orchestration that beams with optimism, innocence, and good intentions [feeling like a Chaplin or slapstick/farce film]. Again stylishly crashing all previous aphorisms and semblances of a rulebook-thrown-out, we see a photograph on a wall of a newspaper CFK wants to buy – touted as ‘the greatest newspaper staff in the world’ & of which he seemingly walks us into the picture with six years past and consolidation of The Dream Team under his name. The nuances change in Kane’s personality over the meantime: he boasts a braggadocios douchiness and superiority complex far diverged from the wet-behind-the-ears young man-of-the-people we saw before. Indeed, CFK is almost nauseatingly-pretentious as he brags about having the biggest circulation in New York City, sends a picture of his new staff to the previous newspaper he stole them from, & celebrates in a backroom adorned with K-shaped ice sculpture. The evisceration of innocence and morality is striking, its Jekyll-to-Hyde transformation being hard-hitting commentary on the deleterion of fame & having more money than anyone could spend in a lifetime – ensnaring even a pure-of-heart young Kane given every reason to hate it deep in his bones.
The behind-the-scenes crew captured magic a century ahead-of-its-time with its ability to age through make-up. Today in 2021, billion-dollar corporations like Netflix pay tens of millions of dollars to de-age actors like Robert De Niro [The Irishman] digitally – and can barely do it convincingly, even with 80+ more years of scientific and technological advancements. Kane did it back in the 1940’s: before there were even computers, color televisions, microwaves, or even the damn slinky.. on a shoe-string budget, not through over-reliance on technology – but through practical VFX, zeal, and old-fashioned craftsmanship. Make-up artist Maurice Seiderman wasn’t even viewed as important enough to be accepted to the union of his workplace, a junior member of the RKO make-up department only recognized as an apprentice and [yet another] disrespected young talent with something to prove to fit snugly in the overarching pattern of Kane behind-the-scenes. Thoroughly-analyzing each principal actor/ress’ face, ‘Mo developed plans for aging them by making plaster casts. The crowning achievement, though, was the full-body mold for Welles’s Kane – one he created by sculpting pieces of white modeling clay onto its surface and casting the clay in a soft plastic material he chemically-formulated himself, on which he put paint, wigs, red earth-tone [fauxing bloodflow], scleral lenses to dull the brightness of young eyes, and colorless translucent talcum with the physiological accuracy and depth/detail of an M.D. [down to even the detail of blood-vessels to replicate the arcus senilis of old age.] The magic of movies to be able to film an entire man’s life for psychoanalysis and entertainment is even more so pure witchcraft technically here. The make-up and VFX capabilities of film overall have blossomed in the near 100+ years since – from TDK’s Joker to Harry Potter’s Voldemort to Nightmare On Elm Street’s Krueger to Mystique and Game Of Thrones’ Night King, but perhaps none of these are as impressive by the forced innovation in the stark absence of technological cruxes.
The scene is a woozying, overblown circus of excess/sin that’s easy to get intoxicated on – ice sculptures of each-and-every board member, a round table of wild booze-drinking & cigar smoking men, scantily-glad showgirls twirling batons in nothing more than lingerie & thigh-high bousties, and a freaking marching bad as if the procession wasn’t crazy enough. The cinematography and score wildly-twists and turns in quick celebratory successions to add to the hallucinogenic brew of substances and endorphins, as we’re given a frightening view into the new Kane’s worldview. Taking a vacation to Europe and buying-up ‘all the statues in Europe’ while lamenting he’s behind because ‘they’ve been making them for thousands of years and he’s only been buying for five,’ Leland and Bernstein make him promise to buy more – to which he makes a snide, daggerful remark: ‘you don’t expect me to keep those promises, do you?’ What happened to that charming young man we just saw in the previous scene: the one who couldn’t care less about money and had moralistic depth in even the promises made in his own Declaration Of Principles? The conversation mimics the one the trio had back when Kane wrote the declaration – Leland and Bernstein pleading him to ‘not make promises he can’t keep’ but reassuring them he will. Here, the sly innuedo and double-entendre plus singular attention to the way he delivers the same word ‘promise’ implies he knows he’s gone against his moral code and everything he once stood for.. and worse, has the audacity to make jokes about it in a sardonic black comedic way! Toto, we’re not in [Colorado] with that young, innocent kid anymore. As Kane’s escapade through Italy and France begins, we see an Inquirer-backroom filled with busts and marble statuettes [indicating CFK wasn’t bluffing: blowing money on nonsense items no one needs, perhaps for the thrill]. A telegram he sends to the crew about wanting to buy the world’s biggest diamond prompts another classic line of introspective clues to what drives Kane’s spending: Bernie claims ‘he’s not collecting diamonds; he’s collecting someone who collects diamonds’.
The acoustic soundtrack of Citizen Kane is every iota as diverse and innovative as its visual one. Bernard Hermann delivered a career work, making full utilization of the 12 weeks afforded him – a century by comparison to the 2-3 week industry-norm. The extra time gave him opportunity to characterize, work-and-rework, double/triple-check, and nail every sequence in full orchestrations and conductions from pen-to-paper-to-screen. Again highlighting the overlooked and underrated young prodigal talents thread running through the lineage of Kane’s behind-the-scenes artists, Hermann was offered near-nothing by an RKO playing contractual hard-ball on what was his first big motion picture. Welles stood by his pick and demonstrated great character by demanding he get paid the same rate as the greats with the ultimatum he’d stir up trouble or leave – and RKO obliged. The films of 1930’s Hollywood ~never deviated from the basic pattern of how sound is recorded and used in movies, but O.W. demanded [as he did in every aspect of Citizen Kane] innovation, complexity, and perfection in soundscape. Techniques he brought over from his radio experience helped create a new feel in cinema: overlapping dialogue, divergent perspectives to create the illusion of distances, echo, creation of audio montages, and sound VFX created by himself and the crew instead of using the RKO Studios library for stock/basic effects [like any other filmmaker would’ve]. There’s also extensive usage of ‘lightning mixes’: complex montage sequences liked via a series of related sounds or phrases, such as in the scene where Kane grows from a child to young man in just two jump-cut shots: ‘Merry Christmas – [cut] – And Happy New Year’ like a continuation of the sentence linking over two decades of stoppage time in two shots/seconds. Bernard worked in these techniques beautifully, while bringing majestic touch and stylistic competence all his own and far beyond the realms of his experience. Embrasure of the sound-of-silence rejected the hackneyed hollywood commonality of scoring films with non-stop music, and his orchestral/instrumental sequences burst with character, timbre diversity, & emotionalism.
Returning to The Daily Inquirer, Kane makes an announcement of his engagement to Emily Monroe – the president’s niece in a sudden twist that symbolizes both CFK’s happy-go-lucky view/ignorance of love by how little he must know about her from only a few weeks/months and perhaps an objectification of people by the suspicious timing of marrying the daughter of the world’s most powerful political figure soon before he decides to run for governorship himself. Regardless, the happy vignette is marked by serenado violins that feel like floating on La Seine or a concerto on seasons: a scene of newlywed bliss that perhaps shows how different things look in hindsight-vs.-experience by far different from what we know later happens in their messy divorce and [murder]/vehicle-‘accident’ we’re dying to see how it fell apart. Concluding that she was no Rosebud by how violently and murkily it ended & summarizing Suzie as just having ‘ended’ too like it was no big deal, Bernstein remarks that it must be something he lost – although Mr. Kane lost ~everything he had in the end. Taking that clue [one that’s actually right, looking back post-film] to CFK’s ‘best friend’: Jedidiah Leland, who recalls ‘everything’, equating memory to the great curse of mankind and saying ‘maybe [he] wasn’t [Kane’s] friend, but if [he] wasn’t, [Kane] certainly never had one’. This beautiful, sad revelation of Leland even questioning if he was his friend and being the closest thing he ever had to one in life humanizes and brings us back to feelings of pity instead of hatred of Kane – ones that get certainly further developed by the middle and final acts of the film. Leland recounts headbutts with Kane going back to the Spanish-American War – one J.D. and Bernstein viewed as an abuse-of-power/influence and ‘Mr. Kane’s War’ and one he perhaps started and killed millions of lives.. just because he could. The psychoanalysis CK fosters on Kane gains new perspective from his right-hand-man and Robin like ‘nobody ever having so many opinions in everyhting, but never believing in anything except Charlie Kane – going to his deathbed without one conviction.’ Even Leland doesn’t know about Rosebud, but gives us further insight into CFK’s first marriage as another dazzling avant-garde transition places his figure in frontal projection as the background warps to a flashback: a proto-greenscreen.. only a few decades before it was ever popularized like it is today [NBD!]. If that wasn’t enough – the two antithetical realities of Kane and Emily’s marriage are merged by a brilliant technical masterstroke scene showing the dissolve of their marriage: the now-famous breakfast table montage.
Recording of musicians in direct, by-the-hour sessions gave Hermann opportunities to score avant-garde combinations of instruments never-before-heard in film – like the opening Xanadu leitmotif of low woodwinds juxtaposed with quartet alto flutes and even xylophonics. There are tons of experimental orchestral sequences that parallel narrative themes throughout the film, like the breakfast table montage beginning with a graceful waltz and getting progressively darker with repetition in each variation of the melody as Kane and Monroe’s marriage falls apart: pure brilliance. Then, there’s the opera. The damn impossibility of a film having its own opera is reason alone why Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made: a perfectly-crafted, sardonic meta-parodization/satire of the timeless medium fringed with thematic analysis of the relationship of CFK & Suzie. The aria from Salammbô of Rossini’s Il Barbiere Di Siviglia flipped upside-down and key-transposed to a pitch high out of the register of Comingore’s Suzie by-design, the film ostracizes and bullies the small girl into a quicksand punching bag for audience laughter – as Kane has out of misplaced love [or self-ingratiation] by forcing her to go up there. Other music in the film comes from eclectic sources in O.W.’s life experiences – the publisher’s theme of ‘Oh, Mr. Kane’ from Mexico, Xanadu’s from Gunga Din by Alfred Newman, News On The March’s from Belgian March by Anthony Collins, and a 1939 jazz trio by Nat King Cole with lyrics centering around the phrase ‘can’t be love’ played outside the tent of the finale’s picnic and Thompson-Suzie interview for maximum narrative/thematic-parallels that work on every level. Even the smallest of details in the soundscape of Citizen Kane were considered and parsed for sonic expressiveness – like Comingore having the inside of her throat sprayed with real-life chemicals in the El Rancho nightclub scene to give her voice a harsh, raspy tone of pain & regret epitomizing the character’s post-Kane rock-bottom we first see.
~20 years spliced together in two minutes by whip-pan cycles of editing genius, the newlyweds’ lovey-dovey eyes and marriage bliss grows progressively apart by the metaphorical and physical space between them in the scene – pushed by a noticeably elongating and ornate luxury table: further symbolizing money and its pursuit by Kane’s long work hours being the object catalyzing the division. There’s one critical [seemingly-benign] line in CFK criticizing Monroe’s policies and Emily defending him by saying ‘He’s President; you aren’t, Kane’ – perhaps the condescensive remark that planted the seed of Kane’s political campaign or what further drove the splinter down their marriage. They finally aren’t even speaking to each other, as Leland analyzes that he ‘married looking for love, but that’s why he did everything – even politics – so millions of people would love him’. This all returns to that one day in Colorado, for now setting the stage for a future political-drama vignette as the film first transitions into the romance of CFK’s second-wife: Suzie Alexander Kane. Painted with breathtaking passion and beauty, the romance is as soft, elegant, vivacious, and star-crossed as any romance film I’ve ever seen – looking like Kane finally got his happiness and found his soul-mate, all a byproduct of something as small as a toothache. More satisfying to both Charles and us in the audience is that Suzie doesn’t know [or at least: acts like she doesn’t know, impossible to tell but more likely being she just doesn’t know by her personality/traits] who he is – someone liking him for who he is beyond his money, fame, and status. The chemistry of the pair – especially Comingore’s delicate, feathery, compassionate, Bronx-talky showgirl – lights up the screen dazzlingly: a collection of little moments and physicality tremors evolving the more the duo gets to know each other [while also giving further glimpses into CFK’s psyche by how vehemently and with merciless bloodthirsty rage he reacts to being laughed at, even when a side-effect of novocaine/nitrous oxide laughing-gas by Suzie’s dental procedure]. The fate of meeting when CFK was on his way to go through his childhood belongings (the only time the act is mentioned in the film, what would be a highly-traumatic one as perhaps why he avoided it) after the passing of his mother is highly-coincidental – feeling like destiny.
The legacy of Citizen Kane goes far beyond its triumph of artistic & journalistic freedom against the rich-and-powerful elite; the film is perhaps the ultimate piece of human expressionism through the arts. Themes in Citizen Kane are so foundational to our core and intensely-relatable, the film is just as cutting-edge and applicable to all of us 100+ years later as it was on opening night – and which is will be 1,000+ and 10,000+ from now. Themes of religion, news, greed, politics, tragedy, psychology, trauma, emotion, and the mysteries of life, fate, and our experience in mankind are all deftly weighed and analyzed by the once-in-a-millennium achievement of Kane: all through the life-story of one man used as a prism for all of us. There’s truth, depth, elegance, & symbolic/allegorical beauty beyond any other film I’ve ever seen in my career in Citizen Kane – it challenges us, makes us reevaluate how we view the world, tells us about ourselves, and makes us feel a kaleidoscope of emotions that makes it the foremost example of what film is and should be at maximum performance. The legacy of CFK goes beyond artistic value and freedom; it also film catalyzed a bloom-evolution of cinema as an artform – perhaps the biggest [& most important] legacy of any film ever made. The dark message that can be found at the heart of Kane’s cynicistic nihilism [the futility of aspiration and pursuit of riches/success failing to mask real-world tragedy in our deepest subconscious] was not a popular one at the time: perhaps the first true counter-culture picture in the history of movies, rejecting the shackles of feel-good/mindless bubblegum expected of movies as nothing more than escapist gimmick to elevate the medium. Due to its lowbrow competition and apathetic status-quo, cinema was considered a lesser artform – the ugly cousin of complex mediums like literature, music, and painting & meritless kitsch. Citizen Kane changed the entire world’s view on what cinema is and could be – taking a sledgehammer to preconceptions and everything Hollywood & the world knew from the comfortable, ritzy, low-hanging fruit of an era pre-May 1, 1941.
A whirlwind of emotions and psychological resurgences in juxtaposition of the age difference is perhaps what shifts Kane’s position with Suzie towards being more that of a parent in the guise of a lover; he sees in her the love-opportunity to give back what never was his and be what he most desperately wanted in childhood: his mother, merged with the inescapable modernized influence of money on is life/psyche in how he parents. This can be seen in how strongly he reacts to Suzie’s passive remark of her mother always wanting her to be an opera-singer – latching onto the idea with an asphyxiative grip out of importance to him that would define [and deteriorate] the rest of their relationship. The couple bonds over the chansons – in the meanwhile, Kane growing a political campaign for governor in massive public hall speeches feeling [& looking by iconography/aesthetics] more like a third-world country dictatorship than U.S.A. democracy. One of the few times we see Kane feel at-home [along with Suzie’s apartment, being the closest thing to unconditional love he’s seemingly felt thus far in life] on that podium, we see him laugh and smile and make promises to roaring, thunderous applause. Promises, once again, are a huge theme in Citizen Kane – being what an idolized young Kane made in benevolence to himself and the public when he founded The Inquirer, what he started breaking in pursuit of money and materialist excess when its vices started to get to his head, what his parents broke when they gave him up for adoption, and here what he’s making again [at least, superficially to get elected]. The character-arc in this theme has gone full-circle, reversed by the fact that his promises are the same ones he made back in The Declaration Of Principles in The Inquirer years ago: to protect the average joe and working citizen from big corporations on a bigger scale, without the moralistic code/values to believe what he’s rattling off from the teleprompter/notes. Nevertheless, he sells the idea to crowds of supporters [a banker: no different from Thatcher now] and bursts with a smile that could light up a room as every aspect of his life is clicking on-all-cylinders – the calm before a storm of tragedy strikes.
RKO studio-execs reportedly told O.W. & Mankiewicz to ‘dumb the film down’ and that ‘people aren’t paying their hard-earned 25 cents to see Shakespeare’ – even resorting to hard-ball, strongarm tactics the crew vehemently rejected to stay true to their mission to bring heart, soul, and a brain to cinema: The Wizard Of Oz to its artform. Kane not only challenges and stands its own against artforms with centuries of lore and pasts; it exemplifies why cinema is the best and ultimate artform even only a few decades into its existence. The visual expressiveness and ocular power of painting in every frame of its beautifully-cinematographed canvas, sweeping melodies and soaring auricular ensembles of music in highly-diverse and thematically-paralleled score leitmotifs, and power of critical-thinking/analysis & social-commentary of literature in its byzantine and labrynthian script, Citizen Kane shows through its mad-science chemistry that cinema can be a combination of the best aspects of each traditional medium for maximum artistic experience beyond the sum [or any singular one] of its parts. The film is a neo-Mona Lisa with a score evocative of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony and screenplay of cues from The Great Gatsby. The Da Vincian complexity and multi-interpretability of its psychological, quasi-biographical character portraiture on CFK [as well as metaphysical themes on the search for identity and meaning of life] was groundbreaking for the medium – a Baroque masterpiece delivered at a time its competition was drawn with crayons. Citizen Kane was just as innovative stylistically and behind-the-scenes: extremely-potent auterism, mise-en-scéne in diametric opposition to soviet montage theory, non-linear plot structure, heightened cinematic realism, long takes, deep focus, low angles, chiaroscuro lighting, depth-of-field, & the achievement of youth and inexperience [+ bold ideas/ambition] over only-stars and big names. The film paved the way for the entire multiverse of cinema we know today: convincing studios to make more dark-horse bets and audiences to demand them to continually cycle evolution of the artform: mutual symbiosis.
The cruelty of fate everpresent, Kane’s high and a guaranteed campaign win by early polls crashes to rock-bottom as his two halves and private worlds collide and clash: Suzie and his family. The revelation he was still married to his first-wife Emily this whole time scandalizes the situation and Kane – a front page news-worthy affair that tempers our see-sawing opinion of him, and one his election opponent fully capitalizes on: J.W. Gettys. The backroom dealings of politicians here against shifts to noir aesthetics – the darkness, crime, corruption, and grime being the antithesization of its light and airy romance, replacing the milky and dreamlike filters of Suzie and Kane’s piano conversations with heavy chiaroscuro and shadows near-fully obscuring the faces of all involved in this coup of blackmail. Gettys is humanized beyond being just a villain like any other film would: he brings up the public humiliation he’s suffered at the hands of Kane by his trump-card of wielding public opinion through the news and dragging his family’s names through the mud. Given an ultimatum of dropping out of the race or being subject to the same humiliation in the news: the dynamic being even more perfect by the fact Kane runs as a Democrat preaching family/moral values while embroiled in lurid adultery, Kane stiffens up and you can feel the stringent pain of every word he struggles to get past the precipice of his lips. A masterclass in physicality acting, Welles captures the power of the scene’s reversion of fortune: powerlessness and the hot grips of panic/fear he hasn’t felt so potently since the snowy day he lost everything back in Colorado, refusing to bow out of the race and let anyone ‘take the love of the people of this state away from me’. Even in the face of a predestined end of tragedy, Kane puts himself ahead of those he claims to love dearest – regardless of consideration of the effects such a headline would have on his son’s, marriage’s, and Suzie’s reputations. The ironic twist of it being the news that kills CFK is brilliant screenwriting by Mankiewicz and O.W.: destruction by Kane’s own device also further highlighting the exploitability of news and journalism being used as a weapon for personal gain/agendas by both himself and Gettys.
The choice between two vastly-different headlines at The Inquirer evokes more sardonic black comedy – baseless claims of ‘Fraud At Polls!’ being the only way Kane could’ve lost according to the newspaper whom, like its patriarch, refuses to accept a reality in which he loses. This moment is of special historical significance, because it has been directly applicable on the biggest stage of world politics nearly a century later to join an esteemed collection of single-digit films to ever be able to prognosticize like this. The 2020 Presidential Election saw incumbent Donald J. Trump [who is extremely like Charles Foster Kane: a celebrity-businessman with superiority-complex, masculine insecurities, silver-spoon upbringing, and multiple divorces who leapt to the political stage; Twitter being a modernized version of The Inquirer] lose to Joe Biden in a fair election verified by the FBI as ‘the most secure one in the nation’s history’ – but that didn’t stop Trump from smear-campaigning the entire process of electoral democracy by claiming, exactly the same as Kane predicted, as a politician that there was ‘Fraud At The Polls’. A post-op confrontation with Leland, as the newspaper headline is seen on the ground being stepped-over like trash: perhaps commentary on news headlines fading into oblivion/irrelevance after a brief fifteen minutes of spotlight or to link it to garbage, brings more important hard truths to Kane by the filter-removal of booze & inebriation. Leland tells CFK he ‘talks about the people as if he owns them’, ‘talks about the working man but won’t like it once the working man learns things are his rights and not Kane’s gifts‘, and that ‘when he does, Kane would go to a deserted island so he could be lord of the monkeys’. Themes of emancipation, Marxism, freedom, rights, and possessiveness of politicians/news-magnates are deconstructed surgically by the conversation: Kane acts like he cares about people, but only cares about himself – convincing the public he loves them, so they ought to love him back, love on his own terms, according to his rules. Having lost both his best friend and [ex]-wife, the film transitions from one headline to another – from divorce to marriage, again mocking the news’ futility and exploitability by the rich-and-famous & a Kane always having to be in control of the story, flipping the headline from negative to positive to escape humiliation.
The landscape of movies today – from the galactic space-depths of 2001: A Space Odyssey to mafioso famiglia of The Godfather to noir-romance of Casablanca to CBM vigilantism of The Dark Knight to meta-slasherisms of Rear Window to spaghetti-western desert glory of The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly simply would have never been born or plausible without Citizen Kane proving movies could be that – and that alone signifies its impossible legacy and importance, second-to-none. The official polls and honors the film has received throughout the cinematic industry aptly-recognize and celebrate the masterpiece. Citizen Kane has been voted the #1 [or one of the top] film ever made by publications and platforms spanning The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Cinema Lovers Club, etc. Beyond that, it’s also been so by a list of prestigious and endless filmmakers: Woody Allen, Michael Apted, Les Blank, Kenneth Branagh, Paul Greengrass, Michel Hazanavicius, Michale Mann, Sam Mendes, Jīrī Menzel, Paul Schrader, Martin Scorsese, Denys Arcand, Gilian Armstrong, John Boorman, Roger Corman, Alex Cox, Miloš Forman, Norman Jewison, Richard Lester, Richard Linklater, Paul Mazursky, Ronald Neame, Sydney Pollack, Yasujiô Ozy, Fracois Truffant, The Coen Brothers, Steven Spielberg, Brian De Palma, Ridley Scott, Sergio Leone, Francis Ford Coppola, and Stanley Kubbrick – to name a few. Conclusively the most ~universally-respected/consecrated film ever made by critics, directors, and everyone whom has devoted their lives to cinema, it’s the ‘official answer’ as Roger Ebert joked to the biggest question of filmic legacy and one that could drive analysts mad in debates – if there wasn’t such a clear solution of Godlike omnipotence. ‘Favorite Movie Ever’ yields contrastive results depending on a range of psychological, sociological, and life experiences, but everyone knows how to answer the postulate of ‘Greatest Movie Ever Made’.
The remarriage begins in bliss and celebration of money, as can be seen by the two’s ostensible happiness leaving that courthouse: Suzie bragging about Kane building her an operahouse. This brings up the fixlike high of the drug of money, and dynamic of gold-digging, at first – ones that wear off in novelty with the years, leaving only regret, resentment, and loneliness instead of a companion to truly confide in and share life with. The new Mrs. Kane hesitates when Kane tells reporters she’ll be singing opera there, further exemplification that the opera career was more important to CFK [since it was important to her mother] than her and commentative on the meaninglessness facade of money in the fact that share brags about the operahouse, not the opera. A chef d’oeuvre achievement, Citizen Kane being a film with its own opera is absolutely insane. A reinterpretation of Rossini’s ‘Il Barbiere Di Siviglia’ hand-written by Mankiewicz and Welles, the aria can reveal hidden meanings allegorically representative of Mr. and Mrs. Kane’s relationship by its thematic evocation of the gods to strike down the singer [Suzie] and end her suffering of public humiliation through opera singing she didn’t even want to do, but was forced to by CFK. The opening shot of the opera arc is a frame of SAK singing with tears in her eyes and her lips almost curling into a scream – furthering the horror-like nightmare of how she views the act as a chaos-swirl of people around in costume, make-up, and set design camera-pans up to the rafters and even a janitorial staff laughing at her. The dynamic is fascinating: Kane can’t be oblivious to the fact his wife’s being laughed at by the world, but perhaps ignores or even wants it by the fact she gets to experience his pain and he gets to be in the audience instead of butt-of-the-joke – a sad desperation to be part of a crowd, even if it means laughing at your own wife. This is all within the guise or perhaps realism of still loving her: the most complex romance in the history of cinema it’s a PhD topic in itself to fully understand. Kane walks in on The Inquirer’s newspaper staff discussing in secretive hushes every aspect of the newspaper’s covering of the opera: floating puff-piece editorials to try to put lipstick on a pig and even further highlight the ghastly corruption of the news. What happened to the promise to ‘always speak only the truth’ these same people made back in the Declaration Of Principles; does that only apply when it’s not something of personal importance to them – morality and journalistic integrity only when convenient?
Leland is the one staff-member to hold out on Kane’s personally-okayed destruction of news integrity – the most important one relative to this piece being the drama-critic and further cycling the deterioration of once-best friends into enemies for maximum entertainment value. He writes a scathing review of bite and savagery – punishing the contrastive, conflicting emotions he must feel by blackout-drinking. Kane gets a hold of his unfinished byline and – shockingly – decides to finish it for him in the castigatory, excoriative view he intended before firing Leland. As if the multiple character-dynamics weren’t already complex enough, Kane seemingly agrees with Leland but fires him for speaking their truths – and finishes a negative review of his wife’s work by his forcisure to sing in the first place, further meriting the idea he knows Suzie is bad and secretly resents her or himself for the situation, but continues on perhaps-freed by the anonymity of a pseudonym withhout risk of losing his wife. Beyond writing it, he decides to even publish the review in his own newspaper – a question that still mystifies us to this day: why publish it unless their relationship really is that dichotomized and love/hate or masochistic. Leland posits Kane finished that review to try to prove he was an honest man: always trying to prove something to someone, and that it was the one thing he ever finished in life. There’s a hint of tragedy in the revelation CFK invited Leland to Xanadu to likely apologize and try to salvage his one true friendship, only for Leland to ignore him, rejecting a man who’s been nothing-but-rejected his whole life. The frame then shifts to the faux-world Kane constructs for himself and Suzie when their real one is crashing down on them from every angle: Xanadu – one CFK could rule in absolute monarchy and make his own rules for. Returning to El Rancho, we see a sobering Suzie – perhaps freed by the ability to tell finally tell the full story and get closure on her conflicting emotions about Kane as the weather and score lightens and clears in parallel. She posits she never asked for anything – flipping the remote possibility of gold-digging and spiraling it into the tragedy of Kane trying to use his money to buy love & force transactional companionship like it’s as simple as buying a statue.
We’re flies on the wall of one of Suzie’s [brutal] music-lessons – the opera-instructor berating her with stroke-like bemoanment of her off-pitch false expressionisms before finally quitting: ‘some people can sing, and some cannot’. Kane overhears and again flexes his power and corruption – threatening to slander him and ruin his career to put the puppet back into place. The refusal to listen to opinions other than his own [even going so far as to stifle them] has further-developed the nightmare fascist reversion of everything he once was and the news is supposed to be: Charles Foster Kane is now the antithesis of news/journalism, while its biggest name and patriarch. Pure masterpiece screenwriting and the greatest character development of all-time. The characterization of Suzie is also complex and perplexing – making us feel sorry for her being a glorified pet and pawn dancing public and private eyes for her ‘owner’, jealous/envious of her lifestyle of limitless wealth, and confused by her rejection of the easy solution to just leave Kane if she doesn’t love him or how he treats her [symbolizing, again, Da Vincian-complexity and ambiguity to what their relationship is]. The cinematography here is the film’s best: presenting us the same scene of her getting ready for her opera performance 2x in opposite views: front-and-back, and delivering what’s quite likely the greatest [or easily a Top 5-10] shot in the history of cinema in the one of Kane watching a flailing Suzie singing her heart out from above like a dark God gaining amusement from her turmoil. People around him in the box-office laugh as he goes silent and into his own world as the aria ends – where doe he go? [Perhaps to Rosebud for comfort and security in the face of public humilation?] Scattered applause begins around him, and he finally snaps back to reality a few seconds later, applauding triumphantly. We see ‘Leland’s’ negative review on the front page of The Inquirer to the rightful scorn of Suzie and a disinterested Kane conflicting his love from the previous scene with indifference/hatred. Leland, forever the voice of reason and refreshing realism-grounder across the film, gets the ultimate revenge on CFK by mail-delivery of his ripped-up severance paycheck alongside a copy of The Declaration Of Principles back from the very beginning: a knife in the heart of Kane itemizing his fall from grace, unflinchingly.
The rage prompts a dark side of Kane unlike we’ve previously seen: standing over a nasily-nagging Suzie begging out of hateful rhetoric for him to leave her alone like she’s his pet and abusively telling her she will continue singing. The cycle of pain and embarrassment continues, reaching a climax of the darkest possible action in life: Suzie attempting to commit suicide. The act is the thunderstrike enough to finally get Kane to listen to her pleas to stop singing – her comment of Charlie ‘not knowing the feeling of everyone in the audience not wanting you’ even more tragic by the fact that is the exact [only] feeling CFK has felt his whole life of rejection from that snowy day in Colorado, one that brings the two together in their experience. Kane asserts ‘you have to fight them’, while Suzie wants to give into them – a dichotomization of their reactions to rejection of grand importance as he finally, under the gravest of circumstances and prospect of losing the last thing he has, agrees to let her to stop singing. The film ends in Xanadu: the large, lonely, forlorn palace again darkened and contrasted as it was looking in the tragic beginning death-scene – foreshadowing the end. Suzie works on a jigsaw puzzle: a detail so simple and ostensibly-benign, it would be glossed over by most audiences and ignored by most films but is one loaded [again, as every detail in Citizen Kane is] with hidden meaning and allegorical potency. Kane as a man, their entire relationship, meaning of Rosebud, and palace of Xanadu are puzzles we’re all trying to piece together throughout the entire film – ones Suzie exemplifies on-screen in both physical and metaphorical jigsaws doubling as a boredom-cure. The two ant-sized figures [made to look even smaller by the zoomed-out camerawork and echo VFX as epic as the Grand Canyon] highlight how alone the two are, even in the same room of Xanadu. Again indicating unhappiness she bizarrely doesn’t capitalize on, Suzie asks what time it is in NYC – 11:30PM meaning people are getting into restaurants and nightclubs, while they’re stuck there alone on a terrestrial island of 50,000+ acres of nothing but scenery and statues. Suzie might’ve lost her reputation because of Kane, but Kane did likewise backing Suzie – the rest of the world eventually seeing past the thinly-veiled corruption and moralistic destruction, leaving two people perfectly-alone in each other.
The palace and grandeur of Xanadu is insane: a fireplace so large, a full-grown man like CFK can walk under its lip to establish scale, furthered by the grand hallways and luxury on the fringes of our view. There are statues in the periphery of every frame watching over the film’s events, giving a pseudo-horror feel by their eerie silence fusing brilliant metaphorization once again in the littlest of details. Statues are humanistic and lifelike by design, just enough to look-and-feel like real people from afar but lacking the soul and life behind the eyes of marble and stone. The statues exemplify Kane’s twisted outview on people and delusions of companionship: wanting not to be alone with nothing but his memories and sadness, but scared and ignorant of how to love – settling for fabrications of people that won’t talk back to him, but also can’t leave/reject him. The psychoanalytical themes transition to money, Suzie claiming Kane never gives her anything ‘she really wants’ or ‘that mean anything to her’ – positing that life’s free joys like having fun in NYC and learning more about him are what she really wants, not the meaningless objects he gives to her not out of love, but power/control exploiting mankind’s hard-wiring to be thankful for gifts and want money. Kane loses it, physically-striking her – telling him ‘don’t tell me you’re sorry’ and him admitting he’s not as the marriage bliss has finally devolved into an inexorably-dark nightmare of domestic life. On the revelation to him the next day that Suzie’s packing her bags, his first instinct is to question why she’d do so when they have guests: black-comedically always looking after himself and not wanting people to gossip, even in the face of certain divorce. She is about to walk out the door when CFK begs like a child, stiffening up as he did back on the snow day and Gettys-blackmail – powerless as he makes one honest, sincere, genuine attempt to reason and promise her he’ll change. Going fine and working by the expressions on Suzie’s face, he ends it with a line of major importance: ‘you can’t do this to me’. Revealing his cards after the world’s biggest poker-face, the first moment of genuine humanity we see from a post-20’s Kane is all a lie: inability to contextualize others’ experiences, clinging to the notion the universe truly revolves around him like a single-child mentality he was both-deprived of by his real parents and given by his makeshift one: money. ‘Oh, yes i can!’ says a Suzie who reverse the dynamic and leaves Kane powerless where she one was to beautifully end her arc.
Back in modern day, one line of dialogue shocks in its spoken word: ‘you’ll want to talk to Raymond, he knows where all the bodies are buried’ – signifying Kane murdered people and hid their bodies on Xanadu’s grounds, far from that kid in Colorado. All the same, Thompson says he feels sorry for Kane and she agrees. Ending on Kane, the presence of bags-packed and act of leaving home symbolizes both the beginning and end of CFK’s story, flipped in prerogative but equally-tragic. Thompson finally asks Mr. Kane’s staff about Rosebud, one of them [with the classically-noir comedic language of a $1,000 bribe in the shadows] remembering ‘he would act weird sometimes’ like the day Suzie left him. The fit of rage Charles goes into feels ~childlike; a grown-man temper-tantrum resorting to physical violence and destruction of his own artifact that works thematically as well. The filter-removal of tragedy shows how little he thinks of priceless material possessions like vases and objects, destroying them without a second’s hesitation. It also reverts him back to childhood-trauma metaphorically in parallel to his physical hysterics – as symbolized by the hemorrhage concluding the second he comes across a snowglobe and sibilates ‘Rosebud’ in a hypnotic, catatonic-trance with tears in his eyes [a masterclass of acting]. A zombie-like somnambulation through Xanadu, he walks past halls of endlessmirrors that fracture his reflection a million times like his psyche is symbolically as he clutches that same snowglobe we saw in the beginning scene of the film past legions of concerned housekeepers. The staff | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 25 | https://www.coursehero.com/file/pbgkm1/People-making-movies-may-be-just-as-oblivious-to-their-own-cultural-attitudes/ | en | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | ||||||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 27 | http://filmphest.com/Films/bokane.htm | en | The Battle Over Citizen Kane | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | Plot Summary This documentary compares the careers of Orson Welles and William Randolph Hearst, centering on the controversy surrounding Citizen Kane. Their lives are chronicled using stills, newsreel footage, and various interviews. Clips from Citizen Kane are also sprinkled throughout the film.
Commentary
The Battle Over Citizen Kane is a documentary that focuses on the similarities between Orson Welles, William Randolph Hearst, and Charles Foster Kane. It doesnt present a very admirable picture of either of the two real men but evokes more sympathy for Welles, particularly by showing some later footage of him talking about his past career. It does erase any doubt regarding whether Charlie Kane was based directly on Hearst, as evidenced by the numerous shared experiences between the real and fictional newspaper tycoons. If Kane was taken to fully represent Hearst and one knew nothing about the real person, he might be a more pitiable historical figure. Yet, the more one learns about the real Hearst from this documentary, the more he resembles a manipulative tyrant. Of course, Kane is shown to be this too, but the psychological insight we are given about him renders him more sympathetic.
After being kicked out of college, Hearsts rich father gave him a small newspaper with which to toy. He began taking on the competition in a ferocious manner, and he would shape stories into sensational forms to meet his needs. Hearst bought newspapers at strategic locations, and a series of "newspaper wars" began between rival papers, even resulting in some people being killed. Even more incredible is the documentarys statement that Hearst papers called for President McKinleys assassination soon before he was murdered. Hearst was a skillful politician who ran for top offices but never succeeded in winning them. He fell in love with an actress named Marion Davies who he began shoving down the publics throat with too much promotion. They began having Hollywood parties at Hearsts lavish private estate that covered a huge area and included a zoo and a priceless art collection. The wealthy tycoon bought incredible amounts of everything and became a symbol of the hated rich as the country slipped into depression. Hearst said that he never got into motion pictures because you can more easily crush a person in journalism. Perhaps Orson Welles heard this statement and decided he would try to prove differently.
Welles was a born showman and loved sensationalism; controversy had always proved beneficial to his career until he made his first feature film. Welles was declared a genius early in his life, and both of his parents died when he was 15 years old. His early interest was drama, and he wanted to revolutionize theater. At about the age of 21, he staged a controversial all-black production of "MacBeth" that proved to be somewhat of a sensation. Around this time Hearst newspapers began attacking Welles and his stage productions for reasons that were not made clear in the film. Welles formed the Mercury Theater as a sort of experimental group against the established traditions, and many of the principal players in Citizen Kane came from this troupe. Welles production of "Julius Caesar" flopped on its first evening, after which its young director went into a rage and reworked the production, turning it into a huge success. He was a tyrant on the set and in the radio studio when he began speaking over the airwaves. His infamous "War of the Worlds" production fooled many people into believing aliens really had landed and almost led to mass panic. In subsequent interviews, Welles claimed he had no idea people would mistake his ruse for fact, but it seems clear he intended to trick people and merely disregarded any consequences that might arise. This stunt led to the RKO movie deal that would eventually give birth to Citizen Kane.
Initially, Welles first project was going to be an adaptation of Heart of Darkness with the camera being the main character, but this proved impossible logistically. After hanging around in Hollywood for a while, Welles somehow got together with Herman Mankiewicz, a seasoned Hollywood writer who shared Welles contempt for Hollywood but knew the town from the inside. Mankiewicz had often been to Hearsts parties and came up with the idea to base the film on the old newspaper tycoon; Hearst was 76 years old at the time, and Welles was only 24. When production finally began, Welles focused completely on the filmmaking process and worked easily with cinematographer Gregg Toland; one of the interviewees claimed the two men were "on the same wavelength". Marion Davies was represented in the film by Susan Alexander, and Welles later admits that this portrayal was cruel to Davies and that the actress was nothing like the fictional Mrs. Kane. Clearly, the filmmakers took what they knew about Hearst, embellished those events, and filled in the rest. Its as if they were doing to Hearst personally what his papers had done to many news stories over the years in the practice of yellow journalism. But the documentary suggests that Welles also saw himself in the role of Charles Foster Kane and, consequently, gives the character a bit of humanity and plays himself in some ways. When the film came out, Hearst threatened the studios by every means imaginable, and gossip columnist Louella Parsons, working for him, spearheaded the charge. Attacks on Welles were widespread, and he had to fight to even get the picture released. | ||||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 84 | https://variety.com/lists/best-box-office-flops/ | en | 38 Great Movies That Flopped at the Box Office | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=6035310&c4=&cv=3.9&cj=1",
"https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Screen-Shot-2023-03-24-at-2.52.10-PM.png?w=1000&h=667&crop=1",
"https://variety.com/wp-content/themes/pmc-variety-2020/assets/public/lazyload-fallback.gif",
"https://variety.com/wp-content/upl... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Zack Sharf"
] | 2024-02-09T21:25:00+00:00 | Variety's list of great films that flopped at the box office, from "Killers of the Flower Moon" to "Tar" and more. | en | Variety | https://variety.com/lists/best-box-office-flops/ | Matthew Vaughn’s “Argylle” has become the first major box office flop of 2024. The action-comedy, backed by Apple and distributed by Universal Pictures, only opened to $17 million during its domestic debut and might not even make it to $100 million worldwide by the end of its run. For a $200 million production that boasts a star-studded cast with Henry Cavill, John Cena, Dua Lipa, Samuel L. Jackson and more, these box office numbers are more or less disastrous. Negative reviews (the film holds a 32% from 255 reviews) surely didn’t help make “Argylle” a must-see for audiences. The film joins a long list of Hollywood misfires, but they are not all created equally. In many unfortunate cases, even great films become box office flops.
No wonder Martin Scorsese went viral several years ago for railing against the industry’s obsession with box office numbers, particularly Hollywood’s tendency to judge films based on the strength of their opening weekend grosses.
“Since the ’80s, there’s been a focus on numbers. It’s kind of repulsive,” Scorsese once said. “The cost of a movie is one thing. Understand that a film costs a certain amount, they expect to at least get the amount back… The emphasis is now on numbers, cost, the opening weekend, how much it made in the U.S.A., how much it made in England, how much it made in Asia, how much it made in the entire world, how many viewers it got. As a filmmaker, and as a person who can’t imagine life without cinema, I always find it really insulting.”
Edgar Wright is another major who has taken a stance against box office valuation in recent years, once telling fans, “The three-day weekend is not the end of the story for any movie. People shouldn’t buy into that idea. Rating films by their box office is like the football fan equivalent to films. Most of my favorite films that are considered classics today were not considered hits in their time.”
Even Christopher Nolan recently told the AP that you can’t judge a film in weekends. “I know for myself the life of the movie is a much longer proposition in that, you look at other people’s films and indeed your own films in decades, not in weekends,” he said. “I think the science fiction genre is the one where the long view is everything. People revisit. They value science fiction in a very long-term way. The original ‘Blade Runner,’ nobody paid any attention to it on release, it was famously a flop. Then over time, people like myself (found it). I think I was 13 when I first saw a VHS tape.”
These acclaimed filmmakers certainly have a point, as many of the most critically acclaimed films this century got their starts as box office flops. Be it “Children of Men” or “The Master” or “Under the Skin,” it’s become abundantly clear that you can’t judge a movie by its gross. Below, Variety offers a selection of great films that flopped at the box office. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 10 | http://oscarpredictor.github.io/boxoffice.html | en | Killin' It at the Box Office | http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6guSTq7TTuA/UGM4DSN4OGI/AAAAAAAADPM/adbTaCM1oW8/s320/lil-wayne-money.gif | [
"http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6guSTq7TTuA/UGM4DSN4OGI/AAAAAAAADPM/adbTaCM1oW8/s320/lil-wayne-money.gif",
"http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/b9/b96dcfcc0b8b9d1f438362e37d3de18f15b6d9b825fee8bbb98d8823f04dc4ed.jpg",
"http://49.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8q5teoAYG1qdlh1io1_400.gif",
"http://33.media.tumblr.com/1e9634d2f5d3... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | null | Five Things You Should Know
“It’s no trick to make a lot of money, if what you want to do is make a lot of money.” - Mr. Bernstein, Citizen Kane
Having explored what it takes to clinch that Oscar trophy, Team Nuns decided to pursue another question that might interest the movie exec: What can be done to maximize a movie’s sales? After scouring public data sources for a range of information, here are some important takeaways:
Budget's Not Gonna Help
“I like working on big budget films.” ― Freida Pinto
When it comes to movie revenue, there’s nothing more straightforward than putting money into the product. Conventional wisdom would indicate that dollars spent against a movie are the clearest indicator of overall success. However, the Nuns model suggests that, once other factors have been controlled for, a movie makes only 15 cents for every dollar spent in the budget. Before movie houses rush into throwing money at the problem, they should be warned that other elements of the production and release are more impactful. So while you’re not making the next billion dollar movie without a lot of cash backing it, you could stand to make an 85% loss if you’re not careful.
Image credit: blogspot
Timing, timing, timing
Another piece of conventional wisdom posits that releasing around the Holiday season is a big bet for many in tinseltown. This time, the pervading philosophy wins out, with a December launch indicating very strong results for these movies than their equivalents during the rest of the year. In fact, a movie releasing December is likely to make $20M more if it releases in December than an exactly similar one at another time of the year. Unsurprisingly, the 'wishy-washy' period of January-May is associated with the lowest gross revenues, even when controlling to ensure like-for-life movies.
Image credit: quickmeme
Mass Appeal
If there's anything Pixar has taught us over the last few years, it's that making movies that kids enjoy but that also sing to adults is a formula for the big bucks. Movies that have a General or PG rating enjoy a nearly $18M advantage, all else equal, on their PG-13 or R-rated counterparts. Sounds like it pays to focus in on the feel-good family fun, and perhaps limit the release of films with mind-bending grotesquery (like Sharknado).
Image credit: tumblr
The Opening Weekend
“The stakes are high on every film now because there's the opening weekend. The first week is extremely crucial... People are going berserk promoting their films.” ― Vidya Balan
It seems Ms. Balan was right on the money, and our analysis bears out that the impact of the opening weekend’s sales as a strong indicator of how the movie will perform. We wouldn’t be drawing any causative conclusions here, but for every dollar made during the first four days of release, a movie is likely to make $2.7 dollars in its entire run. That seems like a good enough reason to push for that marketing blitz.
Image credit: tumblr
Finally, the Movie Quality
“I'd rather make a show 100 people need to see, than a show that 1000 people want to see.” ― Joss Whedon
Oh, and yes, about how good the movie is. While determining the quality of a movie is open to interpretation, we relied on the masses and culled the IMDb rating (with thousands of IMDb-ans contributing) to provide us a sense of how a movie’s perceived calibre influenced its box office sales. The answer: very little. Moving up an entire point in the IMDb’s rating scale (no mean feat given the internet populace’s exacting standards) yields only an extra $10 million dollars. Important to note however, that this is while simultaneously considering all the other possible factors. Movies having a huge budget, the right opening weekend strategy, and targeting the appropriate audience tend to be pretty decent, leaving little room for differentiation. But that means you don’t need the next Citizen Kane for folks to cough up the dough. Just ask Joss Whedon, who despite his insistence above directed the thoroughly average, but box-office-smashing, Avengers 2.
Image credit: giphy
How did we do it?
Background & Motivation
While the prestige of an Oscar lends a unique importance to the award in tinseltown, what most movie production houses truly care about is the revenue value of a movie. This is with good reason, since movies are expensive to make! We were able to uncover a substantial amount of public information about the revenue grossed by the top 250 movies annually for the last few years, along with features about the movies themselves, and decided to put it together and explore whether there were commonalities among those that performed better at the Box Office. Questions we explicitly addressed included:
Movie Budget: Wealth begets wealth, goes the old adage. For studios looking to make a splash, how important are the investment dollars put against a production?
Opening Weekend: Film industry experts love the 'Opening Weekend' phenomenon, but just how much does the first 4 days of a movie's release truly matter?
Opening Theaters: Does the scale of release during the opening weekend affect a movie?
IMDb rating: Does how 'good' the movie is actually matter? We leverage the IMDb rating as a proxy for the 'inherent level of quality' of the movie.
Seasonality: How does a release around Christmas or the summer vacation affect the outcomes of a movie?
MPAA Rating: For the kids, the parents, or the young adults?
Power Studios: Do movie production houses like Warner Bros. or Universal have a power of their own, besides the factors listed above?
Data Gathering and Processing
The data was collected from a variety of sources, with the three primary ones being:
Box Office Mojo: A repository of domestic and international sales by release year, for all movies that would be worth talking about. The annual lists stretch from 1985 to the present date, and datatables include opening weekend gross revenue, the # of opening theaters, release and close dates.
The-Numbers.com: This simple but effective website contains a list of movies and their estimated budgets for the last decade.
IMDb Database: IMDb provides access to a number of features at both the movie-level and person-level (actors, actresses, directors, etc.). While they have this available in large datasets through an external FTP portal, an enterprising group of movie analysts have put together the ‘IMDbpy’ package that provides a number of classes to more directly access the data through a python interface.
The scraping off the first two websites utilized methods similar to those learned during Homework 1, and were relatively straightforward in inserting into data dictionaries. The challenge emerged from attempting to combine these external data sources with the IMDb information. In order to prevent us having to match the data by hand, we were required to find keys that would match the data sources, while handling as many edge cases as possible. In similar fashion to the Oscar Prediction analysis, we underwent a series of data process helper functions and transformations to arrive at a combined dataset. Details can be found in the Box Office Scraper notebook provided.
Exploratory Data Analysis
Prior to determining the appropriate modeling techniques, we sought to explore the data received from these disparate sources. Given the continuous nature of our outcome variable - the gross revenue from a movie - we conducted a series of scatter plots to determine key relationships.
Gross Revenue vs. Budget
Expectedly, there is a viable linear relatonship between the gross revenue of the movie and the budget that was put into it. However, as we see in the plot above, there is greater variation between the budget and revenue as both increase. This may result in budget being a positive predictor but one with lower significance.
Gross Revenue vs. rating
We leverage the IMDb star rating as our closest proxy for the true 'quality' of a movie. Based on the plot above, the flat nature of the linear relationship indicates that rating may end up mattering less than we might believe.
Modeling and Results
The analysis involved for these questions is markedly different from that employed for the Oscar prediction scenario. Here, we are less interested in classification or the prediction of groups, and more concerned with describing the factors that are associated with the higher revenues. This is driven both by the nature of the data (having a continuous outcome variable), but also by the philosophy behind the question. We are not looking to find a way to directly target a customer or an activity, but inform a movie executive’s strategy in thinking about the business of a movie.
To that end, we will be employing a linear multivariate regression model, with the gross revenue as the outcome determined by the variables indicated under the ‘objectives’ page. Our model building process, even before engaging in a Machine Learning hyperparameter optimization, we must determine what variables to include in our multivariate regression. To do so we employed the OLS from Statsmodel.api and began with a simple model that included budget, the number of opening theaters, and the season of release.
As evidenced from the plot above, it appears that this rudimentary model does not do a great job of accounting for enough factors that would fit the model well. The blue line represents the best fit line based on the factors we provided, and the green line represents the lowess line for the data using these factors. The lowess line is a non-parametric curve that combines the multiple regression with a k-nn methodology, and its divergence from the best fit line indicates the relatively poor fit of the model.After a series of additional steps, we arrived at a model that also incorporates the opening weekend gross sales, MPAA rating, IMDb rating and removes the opening theaters variable.
This model has achieved a much better fit of the data as indicated by the convergence of the blue and green lines above. With this in mind, we recreated this model in sklearn in order to be able to be able to tune the hyperparameters to achieve a tighter model fit. We invoked the Lasso procedure, and wrote a function to find the optimal tuning parameters. The score function used was a mean-squared-error in order to accommodate for the regression used in the analysis. Even after the optimization, the final results of the model yielded coefficients that were very similar to those from the OLS in Statsmodel. The final coefficient tables were:
Conclusion and Next Steps
The results of analysis model provided interesting computational outputs that are worth discussing:
The 'budget' variable is both statistically signficant and meaningful. The coefficient of 0.30 indicates that every dollar in the budget entails 30 cents of revenue. This means that simply throwing money at a movie in the hopes that it works is not a wise strategy, and the other factors in the model are very important in ensuring that a movie does financially well.
The coefficients on all the season variables indicates are negative, which means that the holdout month - December - appears to be associated with the best results for a movie's release, with movies being released during that month having an average 20M dollar boost compared to other seasons.
The movie's MPAA rating also seems to matter, with both PG-13 and R-rated movies performing worse than their G-rated counterparts. The magnitude of the difference, controlling for all other factors, is about 18M dollars.
The gross during the opening weekend is highly associated with the amount that the movie ends up making, with a coefficient of 2.7 this would emphasize the need to start off with a bang.
There are many interesting directions this project can be continued in:
Further pre-processing to allow for better data matches between disparate datasets, including information about the cast itself, or factor that may be more atypical.
Incorporation of features beyond those included here such as a more detailed breakdown of budget specifics (e.g. marketing budget vs. cast pay vs. special effects) | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 7 | https://citizenkanebook.com/citizen-kane-faq/ | en | Citizen Kane: FAQ | [
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/citizen_kane_a_film_makers_journey_portrait_logo_no_shadow.png",
"https://themecanon.com/booker/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/about.jpg",
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rosebud-19.gif",
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/upload... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2018-06-26T04:51:36+00:00 | The complete story of the greatest film ever made | en | Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker's Journey | https://citizenkanebook.com/citizen-kane-faq/ | “It’ll probably turn out to be a very simple thing.”
(How Rawlston, the head of the newsreel company, explains to his reporter Thompson
the quest to learn the secret of Kane’s last word: “Rosebud.”)
Citizen Kane may be the most studied and discussed motion pictures of all time. But over the decades many unanswered questions have persisted, and inaccuracies about the film have emerged that worked their way into print and online.
Here are answers to some of the most commonly-asked questions and misunderstood issues about Citizen Kane, along with some dispelled myths.
These issues are explored in detail with new information in Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey by Harlan Lebo, the book that explores the extraordinary story of the production of this classic film, using previously unpublished material from studio files, and exclusive interviews with the last surviving members of the cast and crew.
In brief, what is the story of the making of Citizen Kane?
Was Orson Welles a novice at filmmaking when he arrived in Hollywood?
Did Orson Welles have full creative control of his first films?
Who wrote the script for Citizen Kane: Herman J. Mankiewicz
or Orson Welles?
Were all of the innovative filmmaking techniques in Citizen Kane new
to the movies?
What was unusual about the actors in Citizen Kane?
Is the character of Charles Foster Kane based entirely on
William Randolph Hearst?
How did the Hearst organization try to destroy Citizen Kane?
Is Susan Alexander, Kane’s second wife, based on Marion Davies,
Hearst’s mistress?
Is William Randolph Hearst actually mentioned in Citizen Kane?
Does San Simeon, the real-life estate built by Hearst,
appear in Citizen Kane?
What buildings were used for Xanadu?
Did Citizen Kane lose money?
Did Gregg Toland, the renowned cinematographer who shot Citizen Kane,
appear in the film?
Did some non-actors appear in Citizen Kane?
Did Nat King Cole, the legendary jazz performer, appear in Citizen Kane?
Is it true that the face of the reporter seeking “Rosebud” is never seen?
When Citizen Kane first released, was it a flop with the critics?
What did the critics say about Citizen Kane when it premiered in 1941?
What was the biggest mystery about the filming of Citizen Kane?
Does a final script exist for Citizen Kane?
_________________________
In brief, what is the story of the making of Citizen Kane?
The story of Citizen Kane is the account of the creation of a film masterpiece—how it was produced and how it was almost destroyed.
It tells of Orson Welles, a brilliant 24-year-old star on Broadway and radio, who came to Hollywood in 1939 as a novice filmmaker and received near-total creative control of his productions. Welles’ first motion picture was Citizen Kane, which was acclaimed as a groundbreaking achievement and a cinematic milestone.
But the story of Citizen Kane is also a sinister tale of conspiracy, extortion, and witch hunts: it is the chronicle of a plot by the organization of William Randolph Hearst—concerned about the portrayal of lead character Charles Foster Kane—to prevent the film’s release or destroy it.
Citizen Kane survived, but Hearst’s pressure ruined any chance for the initial success of the film. As a result, Citizen Kane sank into obscurity for more than a decade.
However, in the 1950s, renewed awareness of the film increased its prominence. Citizen Kane rose in stature, and would become recognized as the greatest film ever made.
back to top
_____
Was Orson Welles a novice at filmmaking
when he arrived in Hollywood?
Welles came to RKO without experience as a Hollywood filmmaker, but he was not as unprepared for motion picture production as 1939 publicity and film history have suggested.
Welles had already gained some modest filmmaking experience: the footage he shot in 1938 for Too Much Johnson, intended to be shown between acts for his abortive revival of the William Gillette play, offers hints of a budding filmmaker.
Welles delighted in experimenting with makeup, costumes, and lighting. And unlike many theatrical directors, Welles viewed the stage not as a flat space, but as a three-dimensional platform: his direction featured interplay of character movement, overlapping dialogue, distinctive lighting, and vivid designs.
More important was Welles’ experience as a writer and editor, especially editing complex material to its essence under the unyielding pressure of broadcast deadlines—skills that would become vital in film production.
back to top
_____
Did Orson Welles have full creative control of his first films?
Mostly yes, but not the absolute control that is sometimes recalled.
When Orson Welles came to the movie business as a filmmaking novice, his contract with RKO Radio Pictures gave him the right of sole supervision and control—but he did not have absolute freedom.
Welles’ full creative control only applied if he kept his budget for a film under $500,000. If the costs rose above $500,000—as they did for Citizen Kane—RKO retained the right to approve the budget and the story.
But even if production costs rose above $500,000, Welles could produce, direct, write, and star in his projects, or any combination of those jobs he chose, and spend studio money at his discretion. And most important of all, Welles alone controlled the final cut of the film.
back to top
____________________
Who wrote the script for Citizen Kane:
Herman J. Mankiewicz or Orson Welles?
Debate about the authorship of the script of Citizen Kane—who was responsible, Herman Mankiewicz (the writer assigned to create the first draft) or producer-director-star Orson Welles—has boiled since before the film was released.
The debate continued in large part because of an essay written in 1971 by critic Pauline Kael (the essay and Kael’s reputation were later discredited because of her unprofessional methods and plagarism in creating the essay).
Director and film historian Peter Bogdanovich wrote a rebuttal to Kael’s essay that credited both Mankiewicz and Welles for writing the script. Scholar Robert Carringer reviewed the seven official drafts of the script and concluded that Welles’ role in the writing was “substantial.”
However, Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey reveals that Welles was even more involved in writing long after the supposedly final script was complete. The studio-approved script contained many pages of unnecessary plot points and wordy dialogue, and it is not constructed in the style of the final film. After production of the film began, many key scenes that needed to be condensed or cut entirely, and more than 10 minutes of scenes that would eventually appear in the film had not yet been written.
Lebo found that all of these scenes were written late in production by Welles, often—as he did for his earlier radio broadcasts—at the last moment on the set during final rehearsals.
back to top
____________________
Were all of the innovative filmmaking techniques in Citizen Kane new to the movies?
No. The biggest misconception about Citizen Kane is that the film includes techniques that were new and used here for the first time. The legendary filmmaking techniques in Citizen Kane—deep focus photography, shooting from low angles, ceilings visible in many shots, the seamless movement of action from scene to scene, and many other methods—were had been used in other films before they appeared in Citizen Kane in 1941.
However, what was new about Citizen Kane is how Orson Welles and his creative team applied these techniques to tell their story in innovative, imaginative ways.
For Welles, the cinematography and design were not simply tools to make a movie. Welles’ goal was for every shot, the entire design, and all of the photographic techniques employed in Citizen Kane to be key parts of the story itself.
Welles and cinematographer Gregg Toland developed their goals for the production, and then—unlike most Hollywood production teams—sought answers to storytelling problems through inventive photographic methods.
“From the moment the production began to take shape in script form,” Toland recalled, “everything was planned with reference to what the camera could bring to the eyes of the audience.”
back to top
____________________
What was unusual about the actors in Citizen Kane?
The lead performers in Citizen Kane shared a common characteristic that was critical in Welles’ plans: most of them were new to motion pictures. Their lack of familiarity with film production allowed Welles to encourage performances that most seasoned Hollywood actors would have found unacceptable from an unconventional first-time director.
“I could never have made Citizen Kane with actors who were old hands at cinema,” Welles said, “we thought they would show us up and change the dimension of the film. My being a newcomer would have put them on guard and would have made a mess of the film. It was possible because I had my own family, so to speak.”
Or, Welles said bluntly of his actors in a later interview, “they didn’t have terrible movie habits.”
back to top
____________________
Is the character of Charles Foster Kane based entirely on real-life publisher William Randolph Hearst?
The idea that the character of Kane is based only on publisher and scandal-journalist William Randolph Hearst is so ingrained in the lore of Citizen Kane that the full story is often obscured.
William Randolph Hearst was indeed the principal model for the fictional Charles Foster Kane. However, Hearst was not the sole model; Kane shares characteristics with several other American business leaders besides Hearst, including, among many, newspaper executives Joseph Pulitzer, Charles Dana, and Robert McCormick; Kodak chairman Jules Brulatour, and business executive Samuel Insull.
However, Lebo points that whether Kane was based solely or partially on Hearst, the most volatile evidence that supported the plot by the Hearst organization to suppress Citizen Kane were scenes in the fictional “News on the March” newsreel that appeared in the first 10 minutes of the film—scenes that identify Kane as a newspaper baron who owned a hilltop palace with a private zoo, who acquired a huge art collection, and who urged his country into the Spanish-American War—all high-visibility real-life facts about Hearst as well.
After viewing those scenes, for Hedda Hopper, Louella Parsons, and the Hearst lawyers, who went to screenings already assuming Kane was Hearst, any evidence in the film that pointed to other possible models for Kane was irrelevant.
back to top
____________________
How did the Hearst organization try to destroy Citizen Kane?
As usually reported, the eruption over Citizen Kane within the Hearst organization supposedly began after a rough cut of the film was viewed in January 1941 by Hollywood columnists Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons.
However, Lebo found that the plot against Welles, RKO, and Citizen Kane began long before Hopper and Parsons saw the film.
Lebo learned that the Hearst organization—working under the direction of the corporation’s senior leadership and with the knowledge of Hearst himself—had been planning to disrupt the film since company officials began to suspect four months earlier that the Kane character was modeled on Hearst.
Lebo found letters and memos in Hearst’s personal papers that reveal a thoroughly-planned conspiracy to suppress the film’s release: the Hearst organization schemed with movie theater executives to prevent exhibition; blocked ads in Hearst publications for RKO films; banned all mention of Citizen Kane; attempted to buy and destroy the original film negative; threatened to expose private foibles of Hollywood stars; and used its newspaper staffs to attempt to attempt to frame him for communist affiliation and potential draft-dodging.
In addition, Parsons, a supposedly-objective journalist, pressured studio executives to encourage RKO to shelve the film, and threatened theater owners with boycotts of coverage in her column if they screened Citizen Kane.
Lebo also found evidence that the Hearst organization colluded with Congressional investigators who were hunting Communists in Hollywood: correspondence in the Hearst files showed company executives describing Welles as being “a pretty bad boy” who was “mixed up with the Leftists.”
back to top
____________________
Is Susan Alexander, Kane’s second wife, based on
Marion Davies, Hearst’s mistress?
As with Kane and Hearst, the character of Susan Alexander shares both similarities and differences with real-life Marion Davies, the long-time mistress of William Randolph Hearst. The biggest difference was their personalities: Susan was weak, insecure, and a failure as a singer—much different in temperament from Marion, who was strong, outgoing, and successful as an actress.
back to top
____________________
Is William Randolph Hearst mentioned in Citizen Kane?
Yes. A point missed during the early controversy over Citizen Kane was that Hearst is actually mentioned in the film as a real-life figure in Kane’s fictional world.
Early in the movie, during the scene in the projection room after the screening of News on the March newsreel, Rawlston, the head of the newsreel company, and his staff are discussing Kane’s impact on America. Rawlston asks his staff about Kane, “But how is he different from Ford? Or Hearst, for that matter? Or John Doe?”
Rawlston’s line flies by so fast in Welles’ swift pacing of the screening room dialogue that on first viewing, few hear the reference to Hearst.
back to top
____________________
Does San Simeon, the real-life palace built by Hearst,
appear in Citizen Kane?
No. San Simeon, the estate built by William Randolph Hearst on 300,000 acres in the hills along the central California coast, is never shown in Citizen Kane.
This notion probably came from the fact that photos of San Simeon can be found in the files of Mercury Theatre (Welles’ production company). But these photos were used during production of the film to establish how the fictional Xanadu should be positioned on a mountain top (In the Citizen Kane story, Xanadu, situated on the naturally-flat Florida coast, was built on a man-made mountain).
back to top
____________________
What buildings were used for Xanadu?
Many of the “buildings” used for Xanadu were not structures at all: they were special effects, models, or paintings, such the opening scenes of Citizen Kane that show Xanadu and its grounds, and the closing scenes that show the smoke billowing from the furnace fire that burned the relics of Kane’s life.
In the “News on the March” newsreel at the beginning of Citizen Kane, buildings intended to be Xanadu include structures on the RKO studio lot, as well as several real buildings: among the mansions shown in the newsreel is “Oheka Castle,” the estate built on Long Island by investment banker Otto Kahn (Oheka Castle is the first estate shown in the newsreel).
Most of the shots of Xanadu in the newsreel are snippets of buildings constructed for the 1915 Panama-California International Exposition at Balboa Park in San Diego; the buildings today look the same as they did in 1940 when filmed for Citizen Kane. (Some of the brief glimpses of Kane’s animal collections, such as the large bird sanctuary, were filmed at the San Diego Zoo, adjacent to Balboa Park.)
Unfortunately for Welles, the exposition buildings in San Diego were constructed in the same Mediterranean Revival style as Hearst’s San Simeon, and on first glance in the film could easily be mistaken for the real-life palace—providing added ammunition for the Hearst-is-Kane factions in 1941.
back to top
____________________
Did Gregg Toland, the cinematographer who shot Citizen Kane, appear in the film?
No. This is a fallacy that showed up on a website a few years ago, and has since spread.
Toland supposedly appeared in the “News on the March” newsreel near the beginning of the film, as the radio reporter who interviews the elderly Charles Foster Kane about the prospects for war in Europe. The reporter was actually played by Guy Repp, a bit player who appeared in a dozen films from 1939 to 1977, and was lucky enough to earn a speaking role in Citizen Kane. Repp bears a slight resemblances to Toland.
back to top
____________________
Did some non-actors appear in Citizen Kane?
Yes. Several members of the film’s production staff did perform in Citizen Kane, including assistant director Richard Wilson, who appears in the projection room scenes and as a reporter at Xanadu; associate producer Richard Baer, who also appeared in the projection room scenes and as an official at Kane’s campaign speech; and Welles’ personal assistant Kathryn Trosper, who played as a reporter at Xanadu.
back to top
____________________
Did Nat King Cole, the legendary jazz performer,
appear in Citizen Kane?
No. This is another story that has flourished since it started to appear online. But its origins may have come from a misunderstood interview with Orson Welles.
Welles told a reporter that for the scenes of Kane’s group picnic in the Everglades, he used the song “In a Mizz”—in particular the “It Can’t Be Love” section of the lyrics—after seeing the song performed by the King Cole Trio at a Los Angeles nightclub. “I kind of based the whole scene around that song,” Welles said.
But some film historians have interpreted Welles’ comment to mean that Nat King Cole actually performs in Citizen Kane, presumably playing the piano off camera in Susan Alexander’s nightclub—a theory that has crept into many studies and websites about the film. But the production records for Citizen Kane show that Cole had no involvement in the production.
back to top
____________________
Is it true that the face of the reporter seeking “Rosebud”
is never seen?
William Alland, who played reporter Jerry Thompson, is sometimes remembered as the character in Citizen Kane whose face never appears on-screen, because in most of his scenes he is shown in partial shadow or seen from behind his left shoulder.
The idea that Alland’s face is not shown is the result of Citizen Kane for years being screened with the low-quality 16-millimeter prints of the film in art houses and in even lower-quality television broadcasts in the 1950s and 1960s. Because of this, several film historians stated flatly that Alland’s face is never seen and analyzed his role in the film from that perspective.
However, in crisp prints of the film, and in viewings of the Blu-ray and high-definition broadcasts, Alland’s face appears quite clearly during the scenes in the projection room when he argues with Rawlston about the importance of Rosebud, as well as in the Thatcher Library when he is reading the lawyer’s memoirs and he slams the volume shut.
Nevertheless, for most of his appearances, Alland is shown from behind and to his left, and he often joked about being the “unknown man” in the Citizen Kane cast. When Alland was introduced to the audience after the Los Angeles premiere, he said, “Perhaps you’ll recognize me better like this,” and turned his back to the crowd.
back to top
____________________
Did Citizen Kane lose money?
Yes, but it didn’t lose much.
In the spring of 1942, when Citizen Kane was withdrawn from general circulation, the film was listed on RKO’s books at a loss of more than $150,000—all things considered, not a bad showing, especially when the impact of hundreds of theaters refusing to show the film because of pressure from the Hearst organization are figured into the accounting.
back to top
____________________
When Citizen Kane was first released, was it a flop with the critics?
Not at all. In fact, Citizen Kane received an outpouring of accolades and enthusiastic commentary unlike anything ever written about a film—not simply positive reviews, but acclaim for Citizen Kane as a groundbreaking production and a milestone in the development of the motion picture.
The notion that Citizen Kane was not a critical success when it debuted may come from its limited financial success (see the previous question). As a result of the film’s box office performance—and not critics’ opinions—Citizen Kane sank into obscurity for the first half of the 1950s.
Then, the emergence of film schools and critical appraisal of motion pictures in the United States, and the recognition that Citizen Kane had begun to receive in Europe, helped re-establish in the mid-1950s what the original audiences in 1941 already knew: that Citizen Kane was a cinematic masterpiece.
back to top
____________________
What did the critics say about Citizen Kane when it premiered?
Here are some of the original reviews that appeared after Citizen Kane in May 1941:
“Now that the wraps are off, it can be safely stated that suppression of this film would have been a crime. Citizen Kane is far and away the most surprising and cinematically exciting motion picture to be seen here in many a moon. As a matter of fact, it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood.” (The New York Times)
“Citizen Kane has found important new techniques in picture making and story-telling. Artful and artfully artless, it is not afraid to say the same thing twice if twice-telling reveals a fourfold truth.” (Time)
“After you’ve seen Orson Welles’ first film, you’ll wonder what all the controversy is about, because it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference whether it is or isn’t about William Randolph Hearst or any other individual. What matters is that Citizen Kane is a cinema masterpiece.” (New York World-Telegram)
“Seeing Citizen Kane, it’s as if you never really saw a movie before; no movie has ever grabbed you, pummeled you, socked you on the button with the vitality, the accuracy, the impact, the professional aim, that this one does.” (PM)
At the the Hollywood Reporter, publisher W. R. Wilkerson—author of the harshest denunciation of Welles when he came to Hollywood in 1939—happily apologized for his early criticism.
“When [RKO studio chief] George Schaefer came along with Orson Welles and the latter’s authority to produce, write, direct and star, we believed it too much to ask of any individual and suggested that Mr. Schaefer was just plain nuts,” Wilkerson wrote in his column. “However, the nearest approach that anyone ever came to a batting average of one thousand in the delivery of entertainment for the screen, Orson Welles accomplished with Citizen Kane.
“We criticized George Schaefer, we condemned Orson Welles, we ridiculed even the thought of what they attempted to do; we must now retract much of it. Where there was criticism, we now come to praise. Where there was condemnation, we now feel compelled to eulogize.”
back to top
____________________
What was the biggest mystery about the filming of Citizen Kane?
For more than 70 years, the unknown story about Citizen Kane was: why is the finished film so much different from the supposedly “final” script?
In the final script—approved by the studio only days before production began—several key scenes were not yet written, and many other sections needed to be condensed or cut entirely.
No study of Citizen Kane had explored the development of the script beyond the seven studio-approved drafts and the final script—until now.
In Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey, Lebo describes an additional draft that was prepared after the final shooting script: copies of this “lost” draft are in the libraries at the University of Wisconsin and the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Called the “Correction Script” in the MOMA files, this draft is the closest possible version of a final shooting script for Citizen Kane.
back to top
____________________
Does a final script exist for Citizen Kane?
As Raymond the butler says in Citizen Kane, “Umm — yes and no.”
The Correction Script created by Welles shows that he deleted many pages of wordy dialogue and unnecessary plot points that appeared in the supposedly final studio-approved script. As a result, Welles cut more than 20 minutes of unnecessary material. And much of the Correction Script was shot as written.
However, even the “Correction Script” did not solve many problems, and holes in the plot were not yet filled. Lebo showed that to complete the final film, Welles did two things—first, he created solutions in Hollywood the same way he prepared his Broadway productions and radio broadcasts: for Citizen Kane, almost every scene was reworked extensively by Welles while filming—often at the last moment on the set during final rehearsals.
Second, to fill the gaps remaining in the script and build up Kane’s personality, Welles created four key scenes from scratch just days before shooting them. All of these scenes involved lawyer Thatcher and his interactions with Kane: these scenes include seven brief shots of a frustrated Thatcher reading headlines from Kane’s New York Inquirer, and a scene four decades later during the Depression when Kane, bankrupt, signs over his crumbling empire to Thatcher’s financial control.
Unfortunately, the script pages for these last-minute scenes do not exist—or have not yet turned up. So for now, the Correction Script is the “final” script for Citizen Kane.
back to top
_________________________
____________________ | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 32 | https://reverseshot.org/symposiums/entry/3175/citizen_kane | en | Reverse Shot | [
"https://reverseshot.org/uploads/entries/images/citizen_kane-590x308.jpg"
] | [] | [] | [
"keyword 1",
"keyword 2",
"keyword 3"
] | null | [] | null | Museum of the Moving Image presents Reverse Shot: a different angle on moving images—past, present, and future | en | /favicon.ico | Reverse Shot | https://reverseshot.org/symposiums/entry/3175/citizen_kane | Blah Blah Blah
Julien Allen on Citizen Kane
"The Hearst press is under strict orders to ignore Welles (except for a series of articles pointing out that he is a menace to American motherhood, freedom of speech and assembly, and the pursuit of happiness)." —The New Yorker, May 10, 1941
“What do you do?” is one of my least favorite questions. “What does it matter?” should be the stock answer. This is going to sound obtuse, but I don’t recall at any time in my life wanting to be a writer. Not until I had been writing for Reverse Shot for about 10 years did the idea first occur to me. And at the risk of adding disingenuity to the charge sheet, that’s just as well because in truth I’m not one. I mean…it’s not “what I do.” As with pretty much everything I try, I value and commit to the task itself—in the case of writing, unusually fervently—but I do so unbuoyed by the slightest personal ambition or any sense of really belonging. I’m not describing impostor syndrome; it’s probably more defensive than that. If you don’t lay claim to a description, you can’t be judged against it. You might call it “guest syndrome.” Guests are not always unwanted or uninvited; they can be valued and appreciated and made to feel welcome. But they must ultimately leave and go back where they belong. I don’t find writing easy, any more than real writers do (and probably less so), and I cannot disrespect real writers so much—especially not some of the luminaries and prodigies housed by Reverse Shot over the last two decades—as to deny that I remain anything other than a dabbler.
A useful starting point for my contribution to this symposium is a piece of writing I produced 20 years ago (around the same time that Reverse Shot, worlds away from me at the time, was born) which barely qualifies as criticism, concerning a film which for a myriad of reasons I didn’t want to write about—Citizen Kane—in a context where I didn’t even realize I was properly writing anything, or even what “writing” really meant. The piece was conceived many years before, by a paradoxical event in the late 1990s, when I was profoundly scandalized by a cultural commentator named Tony Parsons, on a late-night BBC arts programme, reviewing the first volume of Simon Callow’s biography of Orson Welles. Parsons lamented that there should only ever be one volume, as the stories of Welles’s life and work were worthless after Citizen Kane. It wasn’t so much that this comment was dull, or demonstrably incorrect by most available criteria, but that it came from an idea which belittled and trivialized all arts criticism: that an artist doesn’t matter unless they produce something you’ve heard of, and they stop mattering after they have. One could have excused someone in Britain for believing such a statement back then, but not for making it, if that person was being paid to address the subject on network television for the good of the public at large. Parsons’s fee, even if on this occasion he resided in total ignorance, surely included compensation for time spent carrying out even the tiniest modicum of research.
As a dogged movie enthusiast, not long back from a two-year spell in Paris, where I indulged in a diet of cinema with a part-time law degree on the side, I soon became frustrated by what I saw as a severe lack of British enthusiasm or understanding for the work of Orson Welles. In reality, I was confusing two issues. British cinephiles were always extremely keen on Welles, it’s just that the “film circles” in Britain were much smaller and more marginalized than those in France, where to the general public cinema was the artistic equivalent of literature and Welles films were screened at peak time on network television. This petty grievance of mine percolated until 2003, when I set about creating a website dedicated to the man himself, partly to remedy what I perceived to be this central injustice, and partly to pass some more time with something I loved (the earliest indication, to which I was then oblivious, of the feelings of escapism which writing can provoke when you work an office job). For ten quid I purchased the name orsonwelles.co.uk and was gifted by a computer-literate friend some software called “Dreamweaver” (this was before universal shareware and blogs), capable of delivering a simple, aesthetically suitable website via which I might seduce inquisitive souls into watching any of Orson Welles’s films other than Citizen Kane.
Having spent months of painstaking nighttime hours trying to make this blasted design tool work—a process which I would readily equate to trying to paint the Brooklyn Bridge with a nail polish brush—an adequate interface was ready for publication, save that I had by that stage lost track of the reason for its existence, and it contained precisely zero written content. So, I hastily cobbled together some entry-level notes on nine of Welles’s films to accompany the pretty pictures, leaving Kane blank. I did this partly because I wanted to defend the other films in priority to Kane, but mostly because the fear of blasphemy, glibness or repetition on this hallowed subject was as strong then as it is now.
I knew I would eventually need to complete the task by including notes on Kane. Using the resultant pedestrian and somewhat passive–aggressive piece today as a jump-off point for an essay about one’s development as a “writer” compels me to do what I’ve grown to feel that barely anyone can—and possibly no-one should—do: write about Citizen Kane. I care deeply about Kane—sequences from the film frequently materialize in my mind, I circle back to it and quote it regularly in my professional and personal life, I see parallels to it in so much around me. But I’ve long been thoroughly intimidated by the prospect of writing about any artistic aspect of the film itself.
Now, two things have come to my aid. Firstly, I realize I have been accommodated by Reverse Shot for 15 years, so the prospect of such a harebrained idea should not be so daunting. Secondly, the film itself is not what it was. After years of universal reverence and billions of words deployed in its favor (and a few millions raised against) by all the greatest and most definitive writers and critics, Kane seems to have lapsed back into something unwelcome. Its ubiquity has cursed it, twice over. It has been crowned, lauded, pushed, debated, and written about within an inch of its life. It has fulfilled the undesired roles of standard bearer of cinematic technique and the cynosure of critical analysis; and yet, since 2012 (decades too late, probably), its position at the top of the critical tree has been dislodged, first in 2012 by Vertigo (goodness, Welles would have hated that), and then pushed down one notch further—via a wider critical suffrage—by Chantal Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman in 2022. What remains with Kane seems to be a piece of work everyone has already talked and heard about, most have seen, and nobody really wants to talk about again. A film which used to be number 1, but which might as well now be number 1000. About as inspiring and fashionable a subject for criticism today as the collected works of Jon Avnet, or the golden age of Miramax.
I had chickened out in 2003, with 1100 words in total, skirting around the point. It reads like a marketing pitch or DVD blurb: some IMDb–level detail, a smart–arse gaming metaphor (“3 aces,” being Toland, Mankiewicz, and Herrmann, and “a trump card”—the Mercury Players), then a straight listicle of all the new cinematic techniques, which we all know about…and yes, they weren’t truly new techniques, were they? Just existing ones deployed with unprecedented brio and impunity, blah blah blah...
***
It seems bizarre now to contemplate that Orson Welles’s 1941 debut—a work which somehow managed to mobilize a significant critical consensus for 50 years as the single greatest film of all time—was, foremost, a divisive and controversial thing: and even, in its original treatment by the industry, something of a film maudit. Due to Welles’s own personal notoriety and the circumstances of its production, including early, vindicated rumors of its biting, even vitriolic subject matter, it certainly filled plenty of column inches before and after its premiere, held at the RKO Palace Theatre in New York when the traditional venue—Radio City Music Hall, piqued by the controversy—refused to host. But in the end, it was not shown in any commercial chain theater in the United States. In fact, only one cinema group, Fox-West Coast, purchased the rights, for its 515 theaters on the Pacific Coast, the mountain states, and the Midwest, only to pointedly refuse to screen the film at a single one of them. Citizen Kane was never actually censored, because there were no legal grounds to do so and because the commercial influences raised against it were so powerful that it had no need to be. But by any contemporaneous industry measure, the film was essentially shitcanned. The word “flop” when describing Citizen Kane, is both an understatement and—as when William Goldman used it about Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut—a total misdirection.
Violence was done to the film, not because it was felt that Citizen Kane might lead the masses astray or misinform them, nor even because it would teach them a cheeky thing or two about the protagonist à clef, the politician, Nazi collaborator, press magnate, and founder of “yellow journalism,” William Randolph Hearst, who despite his status did not unduly preoccupy the American public. No, it was done simply out of spite. Hearst himself—a friend of Orson Welles’s father—was clearly irritated by the attention the notorious production of Citizen Kane was attracting before it came out, but numerous accounts suggest he never lowered himself to do or say anything to indicate that he felt the film should be stopped. It was simplistic/inaccurate of me to write in 2003 that “enormous pressure [was] brought to bear on the studio by William Randolph Hearst.” Instead, as it always seems to work with singularly powerful forces, his “people” took it upon themselves to threaten, contaminate, obstruct, defame, and ultimately commercially flatten the film—while the industry itself, fearful of reprisals and hardly instinctively disposed to protect a cocksure 25-year-old irritant in Welles, put up little resistance. RKO production head George Schaefer heroically refused to yield to internal pressure to leave the film unreleased, but exercised no imagination to get it widely seen (Welles had vainly suggested erecting tents in fairgrounds throughout the country and screening it for a dime a chair). Kane lost money in nearly all the major cities but was a critical success, receiving nine Oscar nominations (and winning one, for best original screenplay).
One might say all this shoddy treatment was amply deserved. Welles himself was a demonstrative upstart and a provocateur, whose antics over his The War of the Worlds radio play in 1938 made many Americans think he felt he was better than them; he took potshots at people without a care for their feelings. (Hearst’s mistress, the actress Marion Davies, a talented, charming, and apparently guileless human being, is depicted horribly in Kane as an embittered, deluded mediocrity and a disposable vessel for the protagonist’s hurt pride.) So, the brash prodigy Welles gambled and lost? Well, tough luck. By the time he had completed the first cut of his next film, The Magnificent Ambersons—which would not have put anyone’s nose out of joint had it been his debut, least of all the source (novelist Booth Tarkington, another friend of Welles’s father)—his name in Hollywood was basically mud. Having lost all the power first afforded him by his Kane contract, this second, scintillating masterpiece didn’t even need to be squashed; it was mutilated instead by the studio after uneven test screenings, never to be restored, the original negatives having since purportedly been destroyed in a nitrate fire in a Culver City warehouse.
So, let’s get some of the baggage packed away and move on. Citizen Kane is in form and substance perhaps the most extraordinary film ever made, and it’s extraordinary for perhaps the greatest number of reasons (not least among them that it ever saw the light of day after two waves of fierce opposition, from within RKO and without). My 2003 self sits on the fence more than once: “Love or hate Orson Welles…”; “Perhaps Citizen Kane is the ‘Greatest Film of All Time,’ perhaps not.” But on this question at least, it’s time to climb off and say that Kane is not the finest film ever made, far from it. There is no point in attempting a scientific analysis of the impossible, so to pluck an example completely at random, I rewatched a film just two days ago—Max Ophüls’s The Earrings of Madame De…—which to my mind is a considerably greater work. Kane conjures breathtaking, insolent cinematic trickery to create the illusion of meaning and depth at times where in that moment there is none: something the older Welles admitted about Kane, and of which he was ashamed. Madame De…, on the other hand, creates genuinely profound, often heartbreaking imagery, using imperceptible camera techniques which modern filmmakers recognize as being almost impossible to replicate today with the same success. While Kane strives and occasionally succeeds in distilling audience sympathy for the victims of its odious antihero, Madame De… lifts the audience to a higher plane of identification and emotion, despite concerning itself with deeply flawed protagonists from the most egregious elements of 19th-century French aristocracy.
Besides, Kane is probably not even the finest film Orson Welles ever made, the pretenders to which are surprisingly numerous and resist consensus (in itself an intimation of Welles’s pythonic talent and the crux of why I once felt orsonwelles.co.uk—or something like it—needed to exist). Even bowdlerized as they were, both The Magnificent Ambersons and Touch of Evil are more mature, fluently accomplished, arguably more enduring and superior works to Kane, and his Chimes at Midnight probably represents the aesthetic apotheosis of the marriage between Welles’s Shakespearian sensibilities (which imbued all his films) and his artistic command. The Lady from Shanghai and Mr. Arkadin are magnificent, murky and thrilling outliers filmed on shoestrings that consecrate Welles’s independence and alchemy: they can boast none of the sheer consequence of Kane but are still preferred by many who like to hunt in the dirt for cinematic truffles rather than have them served up to them. All of Welles’s subsequent films to Kane are flawed and vulnerable in ways which augment their humanity, appeal, and reach, like the grit in the oyster that becomes a pearl. Kane is perhaps his most scrutinized film, but ultimately—having regard to the sheer heft and elegance of its studio supported production—it is his least “flawed” film of the lot. This diminishes it, but only a little.
Above and beyond comparisons (and positions on all-time lists), more value might lie in an appreciation of Kane’s intractable value to the medium. Let’s keep the same random example going: think of Madame De…’s cinematographer Christian Matras, a titan whose work in monochrome stands comparison with any in the medium. Who, reading this, doubts his debt to Toland? Certainly, the beauty and glory of Madame De…, from macro (its insolence and thematic transcendence) to micro (the visceral impact it conjures from a juxtaposition of deep focus and tight, claustrophobic framing with busy production design), owes plenty to Citizen Kane, too. Try this trick at home with any great piece of narrative cinema post 1941.
My defense in 2003 to Kane’s “supposed lack of emotional resonance” (a criticism of the film which I was horrified by but which I cannot now find anywhere, about which more later) was that the film was “primarily a satire and took a necessarily detached approach to its characters,” and I stand by this. Even if the clapping Kane at the opera amounts to not much more than raw pathos, and the sled in the fire might seem schmaltzily tacked on (it actually was tacked on, late in the screenwriting process), the central betrayal by Leland (and of Leland by Kane) does I think provoke a legitimate emotional response which endures: a sincere counterpoint to the gleefully acerbic tone of the overall picture.
And boy oh boy, is it acerbic. Pauline Kael, in her oddly hopeless book Raising Kane was deluded in her attempt to divest Welles of authorial credit for the film, but she had a valid point in focusing on the script—by Herman Mankiewicz and heavily reworked by Welles in a dry, fractious collaboration—as the crucible of the film’s power. Mankiewicz and Welles disagreed on Hearst, as testified by one of Mankiewicz’s letters:
With the fair-mindedness that I have always recognized as my outstanding trait, I said to Orson that, despite this and that, Mr. Hearst was, in many ways, a great man. “He was, and is,” said Orson, “a horse’s ass, no more nor less, who has been wrong, without exception, on everything he’s ever touched.”
This was the perceptive insolence of youth trashing the imperfect magnanimity of experience, yet Welles learned much from Mankiewicz, and the tightness of the writing in the many wondrously technical set-pieces remains a linchpin of the film.
Choosing one sequence from Citizen Kane as an illustration of anything is an exercise in regret over not choosing another one, but this is a nice problem to have: the party sequence in the low-ceilinged gentlemen’s nightclub, wherein the journalists of the Enquirer are gathered to celebrate the poaching of an entire staff from Kane’s rival newspaper The Chronicle, covers a multiplicity of satirical bases. Kane the egotist and showman holds court, marshals the band and the dancing girls, and deploys all his wit and charm in the service of something entirely graceless. “Now, Mr. Bernstein, they have been making statues for 2000 years and I have only been buying for 5.” As the revelers lose themselves, we are reminded in passing that Kane’s newspaper (and by the way, Hearst) helped foment the Spanish-American War (!) and the cult of Kane himself is born right there and then, with a special song dedicated to him and performed with unsavory brio by a cane-twirling vaudeville performer. My most recent rewatch reminded me of a sequence in the masterful HBO series Succession—a piece of satire which covers similar ground to Kane—wherein the patriarchal newsman Logan Roy (Brian Cox) is being feted by his flunkies but rather than encouraging it, he turns on them, humiliates them in a sordid, barely watchable spectacle. What has changed?
Perhaps today, as we’ve grown to tolerate the Hearsts and the Kanes and the Murdochs for so many years, allowed them into our lives, granted them the right to run society ragged, satire doesn’t bite as hard on its own terms, and we need to see the cruelty with our own eyes. And maybe even that isn’t enough anymore: in the age of Trump, the cruelty is all right there on the surface. Trump is not Kane, he is not even his corrupt rival Boss Jim Gittes (whom Kane is all set to defeat in the gubernatorial race before Gittes traps him in an affair with the nightclub singer Susan Alexander) because Gittes works in the shadows. Trump is post-Kane and post-satire: he advertises his own cruelty and mediocrity because they garner him support. The main difference between Trump and Kane is that Kane is a human tragedy and Trump is an American one. Both were raised in privilege, but Charlie Kane had brains, talent, and charm: all qualities which eluded Trump. The tragedy of Kane is how he misused them. The tragedy of Trump is that he was trapped time and again by numerous Gittes of his own (Stormy Daniels, E. Jean Carroll, Billy Bush…), but he still won high office, because Americans were past caring about all that. Welles humanizes Kane by bringing in his own personal qualities—a gift for oratory which Hearst didn’t have, a sincerity about race relations, a desire to interact with the underprivileged and escape his own mad world—only to allow his vanity and greed to squash everything and immolate it. Trump had no such qualities to bring in the first place (unless you count the late Norm McDonald’s dubious contention that Trump was really an elaborate joke which nobody got). As Leland puts it, “Charlie had an opinion on everything, but he didn’t believe in anything—except himself.” What appears to have changed, for the most part, is that these are precisely the qualities which win elections now.
Kane’s downfall in the second half of the film is not satirical, but melodramatic. It is a logical progression, a moral retribution, and a form of wish fulfillment for Mankiewicz and Welles. In some sense—whilst more or less tracking Hearst’s own financial collapse—it is a Hollywood happy ending tinged with regret at the sheer waste of a life. One is permitted to watch the film now and hope that this quaint idea of poetic justice might still have a role to play.
While my appreciation for Kane may have grown since 2003, in one overarching sense, my attitude hasn’t changed that much in 20 years. Orsonwelles.co.uk was born of my feeling defensive (about Welles and his other films, not Kane), and I continue to view film writing as an opportunity to defend something, sometimes even against hidden or imaginary attacks. All of us at Reverse Shot want to advocate for something which doesn’t get the recognition we feel it deserves, but I imagine few of us are driven quite so often to write by the prospect of trying to correct a perceived injustice. I shudder when recalling that I framed an essay on Saving Private Ryan around the fact that people were complaining that the film was dull after the first scene; I couldn’t bear the fact that the Dardennes’ The Unknown Girl was ignored; writing about Jean-Pierre Melville, I kicked off by loudly denouncing all the criticisms levelled at him; and my take on Unforgiven is shot through with the paranoid sense that Eastwood is some unspeakable pariah, instead of an awkward, superannuated national treasure. The bulk of the second half of my 2003 piece on Kane is an argument (against lazy critical assumptions which I may even have dreamed up myself) that Welles was not Kane and that there were no meaningful parallels: “Charles Foster Kane—a ruthless, artless individual—became extremely rich and successful, whereas Welles might have been famous and, for a few moments at least, powerful, but he was never rich and never successful…his fall from grace started almost from the word go.”
***
What Citizen Kane talks about is pretty much common currency everywhere now. The supremacy of the self, the squandering of talent, the exploitation of ignorance and fear, the abandonment of virtue. Welles himself lived all of this at the sharp end, while working in the film industry, from the release of Kane in 1941 until his death in 1985. Yet there is a romantic way to look at it…if we want.
When Welles was first courted by Hollywood, he had played around with a camera a bit, but at that time had strictly no interest in working in movies for money. The reason it took a year for RKO to secure his services was that he kept—in good faith, not through sharp negotiation—refusing higher and higher sums to sign up. The one, barely conceivable condition under which Welles could imagine accepting a studio contract was that of complete control: over the casting, crew, script, subject matter, everything. If RKO said no (which he knew they would and which, at first, they did) that was fine, because he really wanted an excuse to end the discussion and get back to what he cared about, which was the theater. But if corporations could have egos, then 1930s RKO might be a nice illustration: they refused to take no for an answer and, unmoved by the precedent they might be creating, caved to Welles’s reluctance-fueled conditions. It was only when Welles got onto set, as the process took its course, he encountered Toland and began to discover how “the box of tricks” worked, that he fell deeply, irredeemably, and tragically in love with the medium. Welles never lost his regard for radio and theater as dramatic forms, but he knew that cinema had to be his palette. It was where he belonged, the best canvas for his fairground showmanship and his wild, blazing invention. Even when offered a way out through politics, Welles stayed true to his purpose.
Citizen Kane is for me a grand love story, specifically that most intoxicating, marvelously disorienting part of a love story, before any stress or heartache: it’s the very beginning, the courtship…between a great artist and his art form. What transpired was like many love stories, filled with joy and beauty but also pain, regret, and longing. Welles cheated on the cinema frequently (he needed to eat, after all), and the cinema betrayed and abused him relentlessly, but he could never walk away from it. You can’t use a soundbite or a narrative device to sum up someone’s life—that’s the grand illusion of “Rosebud,” after all, which conned the real-life audiences and critics as much as the fictional investigators. But some truths are inescapable: cinema was what he did. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 91 | https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2019/05/19/twenty-years-later-the-phantom-menace-has-become-a-camp-classic.html | en | Twenty Years Later, THE PHANTOM MENACE Has Become A Camp Classic | [
"https://birthmoviesdeath.com/assets/img/ui/bmd-logo-small-new.png",
"https://s3.birthmoviesdeath.com/articles/CINESTATE-icon-white.png",
"https://birthmoviesdeath.com/assets/img/ui/bmd-logo-tall.png",
"https://s3.birthmoviesdeath.com/images/made/dave-schilling-1413240073234-crop_social_200_200_81_s_c1.jpg",
... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Dave Schilling"
] | 2019-05-19T00:00:00 | That's right. This bad boy is twenty years old today. | en | Birth.Movies.Death. | https://birthmoviesdeath.com/twenty-years-later-the-phantom-menace-has-become-a-camp-classic.html | It’s been twenty years since George Lucas violently expelled Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace onto movie theater screens across the world. Since then, the hardest of the hardcore Star Wars aficionados are still tending to the deep wounds left by a movie that promised to change their lives and instead had an alien rabbit with a Jamaican accent stepping in poop. After two decades, there are a lot of people who still hate this movie for its languid pacing, wooden acting, and one-dimensional characters.
But against our collective better judgment, we remain fascinated by the ineptitude of it all. The other two prequel films are pretty rough, but Phantom Menace is the one lodged in the popular consciousness like a popcorn kernel trapped in your gums. The Phantom Menace doesn’t endure because it’s good or because it’s in any way a noble failure. In fact, it might be on the list of the least noble movies of all time. No, The Phantom Menace is being feted after 20 years because movie websites need something to write about and nostalgia always works.
Wait, sorry. That’s not it. Please strike that. What I meant to say is that ThePhantom Menace is unintentionally hilarious and gets funnier every year since its debut in 1999. Humor is, as you know, one of the most subjective forms of artistic expression there is, because most jokes require a cultural reference point or a common perspective. The list of universally appreciated comedic acts starts and ends with a person getting hit in the groin, because we all have groins. George Lucas goes for humor in that vein with Jar Jar Binks, but fails miserably. Jar Jar gets his tongue electrocuted, he steps in the aforementioned space poop, and makes exaggerated “Oh no, someone is going to cut me in half with a lightsaber” faces in just about every scene. Jar Jar doesn’t work because even a kick in the nuts (or the Star Wars equivalent) requires expert timing and a sense of tone. To understand why The Phantom Menace is such a great comedy, one must stop looking at things like “scenes” or “acting” or “jokes” and consider the world outside the film. The material in this movie is not funny at all, but the movie itself is hilarious and exposes the inherent ridiculousness of both the source material and our own grim, liturgical view of Star Wars in the years since the first film’s release in 1977.
The Phantom Menace is a movie that luxuriates in its own perceived gravitas. It’s act one of a grand tragedy: the rise and fall of young, naive Anakin Skywalker. Anakin is just a slave on a remote desert planet, but through institutional ineptitude, religious zealotry, and bureaucratic malfeasance, he becomes the right-hand man to the most evil being in the galaxy. On the surface, it’s heavy stuff. As a writer-director, Lucas sets out to remind the audience at every turn that this doesn’t end well for his ostensible protagonist. Portentous monologues by Mace Windu and Yoda reinforce that for Anakin Skywalker, the Dark Side is inevitable. It’s like an intergalactic Citizen Kane in that respect — another movie that plays off our understanding and awareness of where things are headed.
Now, imagine Citizen Kane had two blubbering racial stereotypes in latex frog masks whispering about “da approoval of a da senate.” Lucas might have wanted to lighten up a depressing tale of innocence lost with some baroque touches, but instead he undercuts the very lynchpin of the prequel trilogy by turning it into a blatant farce. The juxtaposition of the origin story of the homicidal fascist Darth Vader with frogmen debating trade routes, the space poop, “there’s always a bigger fish,” and a two-headed sports announcer is one of the greatest jokes in cinema history.
The Phantom Menace highlights and emphasizes its absurdity in a way that’s subsequently been frowned upon by lovers of sci-fi fantasy and blockbuster filmmaking. Genre films are still ridiculous, from the MCU to the Fast and Furious franchise. But these movies acknowledge their silliness by winking at the audience and saying “We know this is nonsense, but look at how much fun we’re having!” The massive artistic failure of The Phantom Menace (and Batman and Robin on the superhero side) can be considered the moment filmmakers began pivoting in this direction. The rise of post-modern auteurs with a depth of nerdy self-awareness like Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams occurred not long after The Phantom Menace buried a bit of our own Anakin-like naivety about these movies. Earnestness can only go so far for a mainstream audience without a little something to dilute it, especially when spaceships are involved.
The case could be made that Abrams and Whedon aren’t true auteurs in the first place, because the movies they make are as much a product of the studios and corporate overlords and fidgety shareholders as they are their own vision. The Phantom Menace, for all of its horribly misguided choices, is unquestionably George Lucas’ undiluted idea of what constitutes quality entertainment. The idea of camp requires sincere expression, that its artifice and exaggeration comes from some real place. The Phantom Menace is not George Lucas trying to make a bad movie. It’s George Lucas trying to make the first installment of an epic trilogy and completely failing.
Beyond even that, one cannot help but see the humor in the way the movie was received by the general public, both in 1999 and the years after. The idea of grandiose expectations (“the first Star Wars movie in years! Finally, the saga can be completed!”) that are then totally missed is inherently comedic. If I promise a boxing match between the greatest fighters in the world, rent out Madison Square Garden, shoot fireworks before the fight, and then bring out two toddlers in swimming trunks to run around the ring for an hour, you’d probably laugh, so long as you didn’t buy a ticket. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 65 | https://thefilmsage.com/2014/07/02/the-story-of-citizen-kane-william-randolph-hearst-and-the-kane-controversy/ | en | The Story of Citizen Kane: William Randolph Hearst and the Kane Controversy | [
"https://thefilmsage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/cropped-gone-with-the-wind-large-picture1.jpg",
"https://thefilmsage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/170px-william_randolph_hearst_cph_3a49373.jpg?w=170",
"http://theresarobbinsdudeck.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/chaplin-modern-times1.jpg",
"https://s2.wp.com/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2014-07-02T00:00:00 | The story of Citizen Kane as already written in this blog---the story of Orson Welles, the Mercury Theatre, Gregg Toland, RKO Pictures, and Herman Mankiewicz---is all well and good; but the story has far more significance when examined from a different perspective. Imagine, for a moment, that all those players about whom I wrote in… | en | https://s1.wp.com/i/favicon.ico | A Slice of Cake | https://thefilmsage.com/2014/07/02/the-story-of-citizen-kane-william-randolph-hearst-and-the-kane-controversy/ | The story of Citizen Kane as already written in this blog—the story of Orson Welles, the Mercury Theatre, Gregg Toland, RKO Pictures, and Herman Mankiewicz—is all well and good; but the story has far more significance when examined from a different perspective. Imagine, for a moment, that all those players about whom I wrote in my previous post—Orson Welles, the Mercury Theatre, Gregg Toland, RKO Pictures, and Herman Mankiewicz—are the “good guys”, the protagonists, in this story about the movie’s production. Well, a good story always has a bad guy.
Now, I don’t mean to say that this post is about the “bad guys.” After all, were it not for these players in this post, Citizen Kane never would have existed. But there is, in this history, an antagonistic role to be played. This role is—or was—played by a man named William Randolph Hearst.
I often claim to be an “expert” in some things, and I often preface statements by saying that I am not an expert in others. Malcolm Gladwell said that one must spend 10,000 hours to be an elite performer, the best of the best. By that estimate, I should watch my tongue. But, Mark Twain said that an expert—not an elite performer in a field of elite performers—is merely “an ordinary fellow from another town”. I have also heard that reading five books on a subject provides a certain level of expertise. By these latter two estimates, I can feel fairly justified in calling myself an “expert” on the life, career, and politics of William Randolph Hearst.
I have attempted to maintain a degree of anonymity under some fantasy that men and women around the world will one day postulate at dinner parties “who is that elusive ‘FilmSage’?” and children will rush to call dibs on being the ‘FilmSage’ when they play “movie critic” outside with their friends. But some things are revealed about my biography in this blog. For example, it should be evident that I am a student. Well, I am a student, about to graduate with a couple bachelors degrees with the intent to pursue either a JD or a PhD in American History. My area of emphasis in American Studies is Progressive Era politics, and I have, just a few months ago, written substantially on William Randolph Hearst and his role in the Progressive United States.
Most recently, I wrote a 35-page historical article focusing on Hearst’s influence on foreign policy and attempted to demonstrate a politico-ideological continuity in his various social platforms. This is a weighty claim, considering the fact that most historians see Hearst as a pragmatist (the nice word) and a panderer (the not-so-nice word), willing to sacrifice the ideological precepts of a previous platform to advocate for a new, more sensational one. My thesis in this capstone work of my undergraduate career was that Hearst’s attitudes—particularly on foreign policy—were consistent, that he was a Jeffersonian pragmatist (as he understood it) who adhered to the Monroe Doctrine (as he understood it). I proved this by approaching Hearst’s career in three watershed political movements: his advocacy for intervention in Cuba leading up to the Spanish-American War, his opposition to the controversial Haye-Paunceforte Treaty, and his antagonism towards joining the League of Nations.
Now, I don’t mean to go too far. I don’t want my words to go over anyone’s head, because I feel like this is important for you to understand. My fear is that I will speak too much about Hearst, and too little about Kane. But, I want you to keep in mind why I am talking about Hearst, and why I am going to talk about even more people, in this post: these players make the story of Charles Foster Kane historically significant, artistically poignant, politically heavy, and satirically bold. Boldness makes a satire more powerful, and begs the most questions. Somewhere along the line, you have to decide whether or not you like the characters in the film, whether or not you see Charles Foster Kane as a gallant American, a tragic hero, or a forgivable “bad guy”. I believe that understanding the story of William Randolph Hearst and the Citizen Kane controversy will aid you in this decision.
Who Was William Randolph Hearst?
I’ve already talked about this a little bit, but I think an approach to Mr. Hearst from a biographical and chronological perspective is of significant importance.
To put his significance as an historical character in context, I’ll relate a quick story. More of an anecdote, really. Or, as Owen Wilson in Midnight on Paris called it, a detail. When I first started writing my historical article, I was assigned to a seminar group in my university wherein we conversed about and gave advice in regards to our respective capstone papers. The focus of this seminar group was American foreign policy. As we began the initial proceedings in regard to our projects, we spent a couple hours one day presenting our theses one at a time and accepting the feedback of our colleagues. All this was mediated and overseen by a rather respected professor in the field of American foreign relations history. When I presented my thesis to the class as well as my plans for how that thesis would be proven, I provided what is called a prospectus to the class. The prospectus basically had in writing that which I was saying to the seminar group aloud.
After making my presentation, a member of the class said, in essence, “I would be careful about the way you word the claim you’re making. It is inaccurate to say that one man influenced the entire American population like you’re claiming and so I would watch out for that.”
I responded with a sincere statement of gratitude and took the criticism in stride.
My professor, however, who specializes particularly in the Vietnam conflict, interceded. “I wouldn’t be too careful as to not make the claim,” he said, again, in essence. “If ever there was a single person in the history of the United States that carried the power to change the nation’s mind on something, it was William Randolph Hearst.”
Not only did I feel good about myself after being stood up for by a prestigious academic, I also felt my conceptions of Hearst deepen as I truly started to appreciate the power of this mammoth personality. This was the man who, by some accounts, including my own, was responsible for the Spanish-American War. He was indirectly responsible for the establishment of imperial policy in the United States and the annexation of the Philippines. Were it not for him, the United States never would have built the Panama Canal, Theodore Roosevelt might never have been President, and Tammany Hall would have blocked FDR from ever running for office. No Roosevelt Corollary, no New Deal, no Progressive America.
I do not think that I am giving Hearst too much credit. As the great Acmeist Osip Mandelstam (one of the greatest poets of all time, I might add) put it, history is not “the mechanical movement of a clock hand,” but is, rather, the “sacred succession of interlinked events.” It is not historically accurate, nor even logical, to give full import to Hearst in regards to the evolution of a progressive America, but it is certainly not outside of reality to say that without him American history would have played out surprisingly different. He was a chain that linked eras. He was also a chain that linked people, providing the American populace with a voice and an ear to the upper echelons of power politics to which they had long been ignorant. And he understood his role as a link in history and society’s humanistic chain: he was able to play those people like an instrument. At his peak, Hearst was able to make happen whatever he wanted to have happen by convincing the public opinion that he was right, even if that meant he would lie to them.
Hearst’s embellishments (and outright lies) were the key elements to what has been labeled as “yellow journalism”, the divisive and indulgent radicalism that defined the editorial and journalistic efforts of the newspaper magnates of the turn of the century, including Hearst and the great Joseph Pulitzer. I am reminded of the opening titles in Howard Hawks’ His Girl Friday, which introduce the movie thus: “It all happened in the ‘Dark Ages’ of the newspaper game—when to a reporter ‘getting that story’ justified anything short of murder.”
The most legendary moment in Hearst’s career—the moment that high school textbooks still include despite the fact that they have mostly ignored this power figure of American history— is an anecdote from the first days of the Spanish-American War. Hearst had hired the services of one Frederic Remington, a sketch artist and sculptor who had reached some renown for his mastery of the images of the American West. The hiring of Mr. Remington was not happenstance, the encroachment on Spanish autonomy in Cuba was a contemporary manifestation of the westward expansion that Hearst saw as the romantic destiny (or Manifest Destiny) of America fulfilled. Cuba was American frontier; at least, it would be once the Spanish were ousted. Hearst had already secured the popular opinion in favor of invasion with his radical journalism, and early efforts on the island had already begun. Particularly, a series of revolts against Spanish rule—likely reminding the jingoistic Hearst of the fabled tea parties in Boston—by the Cuban natives were increasingly allowing American intervention as a possibility. Hearst sent Remington out to document as much of the conflict as he could visually, so as to use his images in Hearst’s newspapers. It was 1897, one year before the official beginning of the Spanish-American War.
After only a handful of days on the island, Remington cabled Hearst with the following message: “Everything is quiet. There is no trouble here. There will be no war. I wish to return.”
The now-famous reply from Hearst: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures; I’ll furnish the war.”
This correspondence was later recorded in Hearst’s own memoir, which he compiled alongside editor Edmond D. Coblentz. It has since gone down in the annals of media history, most recently utilized in the criticism of the media’s coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2002. Certainly, the power of the press is a powerful one, and no one at any time has wielded that power with such dexterity as William Randolph Hearst at the turn of the 20th Century.
Parallels Between Hearst and Kane
This story about Frederic Remington in Cuba, and the ensuing response from Mr. Hearst, should sound awfully familiar to those who have taken my advice and watched Citizen Kane. The scene in question:
Mr. Thatcher, Kane’s legal guardian and prime subject to Kane’s harassment via The New York Inquirer, slams the most recent copy of the Inquirer–-with the headline ‘Galleons of Spain off Jersey Coast!’ written in bold—on the desk in front of Kane, yelling “Is that really your idea of how to run a newspaper?…Charles, you know perfectly well there’s not the slightest proof of this! Armadas off the Jersey coast?”
“Can you prove it isn’t?” Kane replies coolly.
Just then, Mr. Bernstein, the Jewish yes-man whose loyalty to Kane remains unchecked throughout the course of the film comes in with Kane’s close friend, Jedediah Leland, with a message. “Girls delightful in Cuba, stop,” he reads, “could send you prose poems about scenery but don’t feel right spending your money, stop. There is no war in Cuba, signed Wheeler. Any answer?”
“Yes,” Kane interrupts before Bernstein can finish his sentence, all while preparing his pipe. “Dear Wheeler, you provide the prose poems, I’ll provide the war.”
The scene goes on, and like all scenes in Kane, is incredibly important. (One claim that Citizen Kane can fairly have is that there is not a single wasted second or shot.) The clip can be seen here.
This is not the only similarity between Charles Foster Kane and the larger-than-life William Randolph Hearst. There is no coincidence, either, that a full three-fold name was needed for the titular character of Orson Welles and Herman Mankiewicz’s masterpiece. The parallel trochaic trimeter of both names, the famous interplay with a Cuban correspondent, and the newspaper business aside, one merely needs to look at the stunning similarities between Kane’s fictitious Xanadu castle and Hearst’s real-life San Simeon in California to see that Mankiewicz’s character was obviously inspired by Mr. Hearst. Each had an affinity for collecting relics (Kane collected statues while Hearst collected castles), each were marked by an early surge to fame by literally starting a war, each eventually lost their popularity and failed to win key elections to public office, yet each maintained a sway over the general public that made them key third players in any electoral drama.
They each were collegiate drop-outs with something to prove. They each fought primarily against corporate corruption and favored social justice—the international politics was not as big a deal as the social crusades. As a matter of fact, for both, the only international politics worth writing about were those which they saw as decidedly social in nature. They both stood for a Socially Darwinistic America, one on whom rested “The White Man’s Burden,” as wrote Rudyard Kipling. They each were criticized for political inconsistencies, yet stood convinced of their own stubbornness. They both met overseas with powerful leaders. They both were hated stateside by powerful leaders.
Another significant, and often over-looked, example is that of the female protege. Hearst’s most controversial relationship involved his extra-marital affair with famous screen actor Marion Davies, one of the first real beauties of the movie industry. She was a rising star with much potential whose atmospheric rise was somewhat blocked by Hearst’s intrusion on her career. He took over management of all her affairs, convinced that his great influence would take her places she could never reach on her own. Orson Welles himself, in defending Ms. Davies later on in his career, said that she was a brilliant talent who was nothing but hurt by her association with Hearst.
The protege on the fictional side (the Kane side) was named Susan Alexander (played wonderfully by Dorothy Comingore). Unlike Davies, Alexander is characterized by a lack of talent. She is Kane’s own project, as if he is convinced so much of his own power that he really believes he can infuse talent into an otherwise talentless suburbanite. In essence, Kane’s self-delusion greatly exceeds that of Hearst in this regard. Unlike with Hearst, who never married Davies, though she stayed by his side until the end, Kane ends up marrying Alexander—though she ultimately leaves him to die alone.
The Inside Man
This is where the back story of Citizen Kane gets interesting. And I do not mean the back story to the movie’s plot, I mean the back story to the movie’s creation and production. Just how could Mr. Welles and Mr. Mankiewicz know so well the inner drama of a powerful figure? How could the most controversial, personal aspects of a monolithic man be so easily drawn out with such wit and depth? How could anyone write this movie and get away with it?
Compare for a moment, the subject matter between Citizen Kane and Welles’ other great films: The Magnificent Ambersons, The Trial, Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight), and A Touch of Evil. While these other films are based mainly in adaptations (recall that Welles’ theatrical and radio success were also based on his mastery of adapting previously written material like Macbeth and War of the Worlds), and these films trigger a depth that is born not only of the source material but also the artistic expression of the adaptation decisions. Kane, however, is far more shallow in that is a rather opaque recitation of facts. Pauline Kael described the film as “a collection of blackout sketches, but blackout sketches arranged to comment on each other, and it was planned that way right in the shooting script.” These sketches were “built to make their points and get their laughs and hit climax just before a fast cut takes us to the next (sequence).” This style contrasts the narrative structure of these other films (though The Trial does not really pass as a “narrative” film), and further differentiates it from them. But, above all, it is the subject matter that is most telling and distinguishing. Again, I quote Kael: these other films weren’t “conceived in terms of daring modern subjects that excite us, as the very idea of Kane excited us.” That is because Kane wasn’t only a movie about newspapers. It was a movie written like a newspaper, with a “journalist’s sense of what would be a scandal as well as a great subject.”
The journalist whose “sense” it was that was capable of writing such a delicate screenplay with such humor and pith was, you guessed it, Herman J. Mankiewicz. “There is a theme that is submerged in much of Citizen Kane but that comes to the surface now and then,” wrote Kael, “and it’s the linking life story of Hearst and of Mankiewicz and of Welles—the story of how brilliantly gifted men who seem to have everything it takes to do what they want to do are defeated. It’s the story of how heroes become comedians and con artists.” With the immortality to which this film has now reached, we can say that the underlying and powerful theme/back-story is this interlinking tale of Hearst and Mankiewicz and Welles and Charles Foster Kane himself.
See, Herman J. Mankiewicz was, as was stated in the last essay I wrote in this series on Kane, first and foremost a newspaper man. His mastery of satire and writing provided him a valuable “in” to the industry elite, and helped to forge a friendship with Hearst and a place at his right hand…literally, as Hearst would insist upon Mankiewicz’s presence right next to him at dinner parties so that he did not miss Mankiewicz’s timely contributions to whatever conversation was presently ensuing. He was truly the life of the party, and Hearst—the man who always got what he wanted—would not miss it for a second. Mankiewicz was also a regular guest at Hearst’s San Simeon state, where he would spend considerable time fraternizing with the Master of San Simeon as well as his mistress, Marion Davies.
Film Politics: A Complex Social Web
It was through Davies that Mankiewicz’s relationship with Hearst began. Mankiewicz was close friends with one Charles Lederer, a child prodigy who was rising to great popularity on both coasts as a prolific writer. Already Lederer was garnering friends in high places, but one such friend, whom he held in the highest esteem was his aunt, Marion Davies. Davies sister was Lederer’s mother, and had actually acted in musical theater and opera (which is another tie to Kane’s Susan Alexander). Lederer had entered college at the age of 13, but dropped out to help work on Hearst’s papers.
Lederer’s relationship with Orson Welles was not merely through association with Mankiewicz, it went even deeper than that. In 1940, shortly before the release of Kane, Lederer would marry Virginia Nicolson, the ex-wife of Orson Welles and mother to Welles’ daughter.
Lederer—now raising Welles’ daughter—was a bridge that connected the pieces of a complex social web, and was also a contributing force to the rise of the newspaper genre itself. His most significant scripts predating the release of Citizen Kane in 1941 were The Front Page in 1931 and His Girl Friday in 1940. Not only was Lederer enabling the story of Kane by propelling its creators into the inner circle of the newspaper elite, but he was also creating a critical and popular movement toward the very genre to which Welles and Mankiewicz intended to contribute.
There was, however, one more player to add to this complex social web (which, of course, only leads to adding more players). This man was Louis B. Mayer, the head of production at MGM. Mayer had enjoyed a relatively close relationship with Hearst because of his affiliation with Marion Davies. Davies was one of MGM’s prize actors, and Hearst’s involvement—not unlike that of Charles Foster Kane in the movie—was financially helpful to the corporation, as he managed all of Davies’ affairs and even invested in the company. Outside of the monetary support, it was the intangible help of Hearst’s vocal support that was of most value to MGM. Hearst would run full page articles lauding Mayer and the team at MGM, and Davies’ face—despite the failure of a string of her films at the box office—was an important PR point for MGM advertising.
Mayer’s individual relationship with Hearst informed his decisions on how to approach the release of Citizen Kane. In his time with Hearst and Davies, he had come to see just how delicately Hearst approached the affair with the valuable perspective of a third party. Hearst was supremely cautious to avoid any public exposure of the affair, refusing to be in any photograph with Davies even at large events. Supposedly, this was out of respect to his wife, though one could probably assume it was to save face for the possibility of another electoral run. Newspaper barons could do whatever they wanted, but public servants had to toe the line. Mayer knew this, and he also knew that the script in question, the script written by another man close to the affair, portrayed this relationship in a terribly negative light, particularly smearing the woman involved.
What scared Mayer was that, just as he had the “skinny”, as it were, on Hearst because of their close-knit association, so did Hearst have information and scandal on the entire industry. He also knew that the man who started the Spanish-American War was not afraid to sensationalize a story. So, even though Kane was to be distributed and produced by RKO Pictures, Mayer felt that MGM and every corporation in the industry would be brutally effected by Hearst’s wrath. He and Nicolas Schenk, chairman of the board at Loew’s International, the distributing company associated with MGM, gathered a $900,000 fund from other concerned industry moguls to gift to George J. Schaefer and crew at RKO in exchange for a promise that Kane would be scrapped and the negative destroyed.
The offer was rejected, and RKO started the difficult process of distributing the film, a process made even more difficult by the fact that the company didn’t own as many theaters as other production agencies and was greatly dependent on the help of affiliates like MGM and others. This allowed for the industry elite to, in essence, block showings of the controversial film and, thus, hope to get on Hearst’s good side as loyal disciples. This greatly effected the overall success of the film.
Over the course of the last seventy-five years or so, this story has evolved into a mythical tale about how William Randolph Hearst directly crippled the release of the greatest film ever made, and that the greatest film ever made came into theaters as a box office flop. This is not true. As a matter of fact, the movie had rave reviews and was actually quite popular, though its limited theatrical release caused for it to never make a real profit. This is understandable considering the fact that it was one of the most expensive films to come out of RKO to date. Hearst’s impact on the film’s success was indirect, born of the respect and fear he had caused to be developed in the hearts of any man or woman in any industry towards him and his powerful newspaper empire. Certainly Hearst went after RKO, but he never went after Citizen Kane directly, nor did he smear Orson Welles, nor did he close down any theaters. All of that was done by other parties, parts of the complex social web that was Hollywood and all its politics.
Why is This Important?
The good question at this point is why all this information about the history of the movie is important. After all, the story behind the scenes does not necessarily make a movie good. A movie is good based on its own precepts and its own self, independent of the degree of interest the back story may provide. After all, the perfection of Au Hasard Balthazar does not necessarily come with a compelling story about the complexities of its production. On the other hand, the story of the third installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise can be very interesting but that does not save the film from all its many setbacks.
One thing that makes Kane so great is because the nature of its material is so closely associated with its origin story. It is surprisingly self-aware of its own audacity, mixing its harsh criticism of Hearst-style journalism with its recognition that, without it, the film—as well as the careers of its creators—never would have existed. It was exactly that sensational-style journalism that propelled Orson Welles into the upper echelons of the entertainment elite with their over-the-top coverage of his War of the Worlds scandal. It was the channel whereby Herman J. Mankiewicz rose to prominence. So, while Mr. Hearst decried Mankiewicz for what he deemed as outright betrayal and RKO Pictures for their misrepresentation of his character, he had to, eventually, look into the mirror of his own industry and realize that this was a creature of his own creation.
Such a significant political irony propels the movie forward, and is undoubtedly one of the ironies that Pauline Kael referred to when she wrote, “Though the political ironies are not clear to young audiences, and though young audiences don’t know much about the subject—William Randolph Hearst…—they nevertheless respond to the effrontery, the audacity, and the risks. Hearst’s career and his power provided a dangerous subject that stimulated and energized all those connected with the picture—they felt they were doing something instead of just working on one more cooked-up story that didn’t relate to anything that mattered.” This movie mattered to those who made it, and their own self-involvement was evident in the film itself.
Take, for example, the story of Jedediah Leland, Charles Foster Kane’s closest friend and confidant in the film. This character was deep in Kane’s empire and watched as Kane’s ambition spiraled him out of control and farther and farther away from the love for which he so desperately longed. Leland was also the only one brave enough to confront Kane on his hypocrisies, and ended up receiving the full brunt of Kane’s wrath in return. I find this one of the most powerful subplots of the Kane story.
Leland’s audacity before the Master of Xanadu castle was not unlike the intense confidence Mankiewicz manifested before the real-life power of the Master of San Simeon. The entire team—perhaps Mankiewicz most of all—were sending a real message with this movie, one that would make or break their entire careers. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 93 | https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/25/citizen-kane-rosebud | en | Citizen Kane and the meaning of Rosebud | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=6035250&cv=2.0&cj=1&cs_ucfr=0&comscorekw=Film%2CFilm+books%2CBooks%2CCulture%2COrson+Welles%2CCitizen+Kane",
"https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2015/4/22/1429717296786/Orson-Welles-008.jpg?width=465&dpr=1&s=none",
"https://i.guim.co.uk/img... | [
"https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/TrtEFCMuuZI?wmode=opaque&feature=oembed"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Peter Bradshaw",
"www.theguardian.com"
] | 2015-04-25T00:00:00 | Citizen Kane has long been acclaimed as a work of genius and endlessly dissected by critics. But a mystery still lies at the heart of this masterpiece. On the eve of Orson Welles’s centenary, Peter Bradshaw comes up with his own theory about the film’s clinching moment | en | the Guardian | https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/apr/25/citizen-kane-rosebud | Spitting Image once made a joke about Orson Welles – that he lived his life in reverse. The idea, effectively, is that Welles started life as a fat actor who got his first break doing TV commercials for wine, moved on to bigger character roles as fat men, but used his fees to help finance indie films which he directed himself; their modest, growing success gave him the energy and self-esteem to lose weight. Then the major Hollywood studios gave him the chance to direct big-budget pictures, over which he gained more and more artistic control until he made his culminating mature masterpiece: Citizen Kane, the story of the doomed press baron Charlie Kane – played by Welles himself, partly based on WR Hearst – and told in a dazzling series of fragments, shards, jigsaw pieces and reflected images.
Poor, poor Orson Welles: repeatedly talked about as a tragic disappointment, his achievements somehow held against him, as if he had culpably outlived his own genius. After all, he only created arguably the greatest Hollywood movie in history, only directed a string of brilliant films, only won the top prize at Cannes, only produced some of the most groundbreaking theatre on Broadway, only reinvented the mass medium of radio, and in his political speeches, only energised the progressive and anti-racist movement in postwar America. As the room service waiter in the five-star hotel said to George Best: “Where did it all go wrong?”
Perhaps it is the fault of Citizen Kane itself, that mysterious, almost Elizabethan fable of kingship, which so seductively posits the coexistence of greatness and failure. Martin Scorsese, in his brilliant commentary on the film, said that cinema normally generates empathy for its heroes, but the enigma of Kane frustrates this process. The audience wants to know and love Kane, but can’t – so this need to love was displaced on to Welles himself, and accounted for his immense popularity and celebrity in the 1940s. It is the same with cinema: however immersive, however sensual, however stunningly effective at igniting almost childlike sympathy and love, cinema withholds the inner life of its human characters, while exposing the externals: the faces, the bodies, the buildings, the streetscapes, the sunsets.
The story of Charles Foster Kane is a troubled one: the headstrong newspaper proprietor who makes a brilliant marriage to the niece of the US president and takes a principled democratic stand for the little guy against monopoly capitalism, but only to reinforce his own prerogatives, and only in an attempt to pre-empt the growth of trade unionism. And Kane’s own political ambitions, like those of Charles Stewart Parnell in Ireland, are destroyed by sexual transgression: an affair with a singer who is to become his second wife. Kane’s indiscretion generates precisely the kind of salacious, destructive news story that he had pioneered in his own newspapers.
Diminished by the Wall Street crash and personal catastrophe, Kane becomes a pro-appeasement isolationist, complacently unconcerned about European fascism, though in his youth cheerfully willing to indulge the idea of a short circulation-boosting war with Spain. He dies in the present day, in 1941 – Citizen Kane was released seven months before Pearl Harbor. Kane himself becomes a remote figure, enervated and paralysed by his mythic wealth, somewhere between Scott Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatsby and Adam Verver, the unimaginably rich art collector in Henry James’s The Golden Bowl.
But how about that tiny detail that Kane’s would-be biographers believe is the key to everything? The murmured word on his deathbed: “Rosebud”. It is a mystery which they fail to solve, but we do not – it relates to Kane’s last moments of childhood innocence and happiness, playing in the snow before his bank-trustee appointed guardian, the Dickensian Mr Thatcher, comes to take him away to prepare for him his lonely new life as a 20th-century American oligarch. Kane’s business manager, Mr Bernstein, played by Everett Sloane, tells us never to underestimate the importance of tiny moments, and famously remarks that never a month goes by without him thinking of a fleeting glimpse he had once of a beautiful girl in a white dress and parasol. Never a week goes by without me thinking of that scene, without me trying to imagine that woman’s beauty, and who might play her in a flashback scene (I suggest Mary Astor) and of the awful fact that Everett Sloane was to become obsessed with his own ugliness and addicted to cosmetic surgery.
For any journalist, Citizen Kane is a glorious, subversive, pessimistic film. We all know what newspaper journalists are supposed to be like in the movies: funny, smart, wisecracking, likable heroes. Not in Citizen Kane, they’re not. Journalists are nobodies. The person who counts is the owner. And Welles’s Charlie Kane is not even a self-made man. He had his wealth handed to him. He was never the underdog. Haughty, impulsive, charming and charismatic: the 25-year‑old Welles is so handsome, leonine, with an intelligent, perennially amused face, like a young Bob Hope.
I’ve lost count of the times I’ve watched the scene in which he first shows up with what we would now call his entourage at the offices of the New York Inquirer, the little underperforming paper he seizes on as the cornerstone of his future career – rather in the way Rupert Murdoch started with the Adelaide News. He blows through that dusty office like a whirlwind. Kane derides the idea of his paper remaining closed 12 hours a day: later, he will buy an opera house for his wife to sing in and for his newspapers to promote. And so Kane, in fiction, invented the idea of rolling 24‑hour news, and a vertically integrated infotainment empire. Welles himself had a newspaper column for many years after Kane, and I suspect he thought of himself as in some ways a newspaper proprietor with other people’s money. He told Peter Bogdanovich in their celebrated interview series in 1969 that he never saw Citizen Kane again after watching a finished print in an empty Los Angeles cinema six months before it opened in 1941 – and never stayed to watch the film at the premiere. Perhaps the image of Kane’s failure became increasingly painful.
One of the main characters is Jedediah Leland, played by Joseph Cotten with his handsome, sensitive face. Kane’s college buddy, he has been kept around as a corporate courtier and is, in Leland’s own words, a “stooge”. He has given Kane an intense loyalty which never quite becomes friendship, and gets the job as the drama critic who must review the woeful professional debut of Kane’s second wife, Susan, played by Dorothy Comingore. Leland is pathetic, with neither the cunning to suppress his opinion, nor the courage to express it plainly. He slumps drunk over his typewriter and in an ecstasy of self-hate and masochistic defiance and despair, Kane completes the review himself. Critics are always implicated in the system, says Kane, and the system’s owners are exposed by their attempts to show themselves independent.
Kane has his parallels with British newspaper bosses – in fact, I’m always surprised that the comparison isn’t made more often. He is very like Lord Copper, owner of The Beast in Evelyn Waugh’s novel Scoop, who appreciated the excitement of short, sharp foreign wars. “The Beast stands for strong mutually antagonistic governments everywhere,” said Copper, and to a reporter who has just cabled that there is no war in Cuba, Kane replies: “You provide the prose-poems, I’ll provide the war.” Waugh also said that Lord Copper loved to give banquets, and “it would be an understatement to say that no one enjoyed them more than the host, for no one else enjoyed them at all.” I think of that line every time I watch the magnificent scene in Kane showing the banquet given to celebrate the Inquirer’s success – with dancing girls brought in, shouldering sparkly cardboard-cutout rifles, in honour of America’s forthcoming war with Spain. Cotten’s tense, tired face and sad smile hints at an awful truth: despite Kane’s boyish glee and the apparent general raucous excitement, it might be a terrible strain and unspoken humiliation for these salaried employees to pretend to be enjoying themselves worshipping their boss. I wonder how many newspaper bosses have watched that scene and taken it as a how-to guide for triumphalism at work.
It also reminds me of a strange moment in my life: 20 years ago, I was invited to a colossal party at the Earth Gallery in London’s Natural History Museum, hosted by Sir David English, legendary editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail. It was a lavish, but strangely tense occasion, a notionally generous send off for an editor whom English had forced into retirement. After a speech full of clenched and insincere bonhomie, the editor-in-chief brusquely asked us all to raise our champagne glasses – he did so himself, his arm extended. It was an uncomfortable moment, and quite a few people had on their faces Cotten’s strained smile from Citizen Kane.
Moments are what we are left with in Citizen Kane: a pointilliste constellation of gleaming moments from which we can never quite stand far enough back to see the bigger picture in its entirety. One of the most stomach-turning is the “picnic” that Kane offers to give Susan in a moment of drowsy ennui. Kane and Susan begin to argue in their private tent while music and dancing begin outside, becoming more abandoned and maybe even orgiastic. Welles orchestrates these sounds contrapuntally with the couple’s quarrel, they climax with a strange sound of screaming, as if Kane and Susan’s own malaise had been projected to the party outside.
The scenes of Kane and Susan together in Xanadu are eerie: an Expressionist bad dream, all darkness and weird perspectives, the couple marooned in the gigantic, sinister house, Kane prowling up to Susan while she morosely fits together a jigsaw. Kane wanders to a bizarrely huge fireplace and for a second he looks tiny, and Xanadu looks like the giant’s lair from Jack and the Beanstalk.
And yet Welles’s scenes with Ruth Warrick, playing his first wife, Emily, are no less vibrant, no less meaningful, especially on their arrival home for breakfast as young marrieds, having partied all night – and contemplating going to bed, but not to sleep. It is subtle but still a sexy scene.
It circles back to Rosebud: the anti-riddle of the anti-Sphinx. Welles himself playfully claimed that the word was Hearst’s own term for his wife’s genitalia, and so naturally the mogul was annoyed. Another false trail. The murmuring of “Rosebud” is in one way the film’s teasing offer of synecdoche: the part for the whole, the one jigsaw piece that is in fact the whole puzzle. But it isn’t.
Rosebud is more probably Welles’s intuition of the illusory flashback effect of memory that will affect all of us, particularly at the very end of our lives: the awful conviction that childhood memories are better, simpler, more real than adult memories – that childhood memories are the only things which are real. The remembered details of early existence – moments, sensations and images – have an arbitrary poetic authenticity which is a by-product of being detached from the prosaic context and perspective which encumbers adult minds, the rational understanding which would rob them of their mysterious force. We all have around two or three radioactive Rosebud fragments of childhood memory in our minds, which will return on our deathbeds to mock the insubstantial dream of our lives.
This brings me to my own “Rosebud” theory of the film, the moment that may or may not explain everything. It is in fact the moment that isn’t there, a shocking, ghostly absence that Welles allows you to grasp only after the movie is over: the death of his first wife and his son in an automobile accident. We only hear of it in the newsreel about Kane that begins the film – the brief roundup that we are invited to believe does not get to the heart of the man. But that is the last we hear of it. It happens two years into his second marriage. When does Kane hear this terrible news himself? How does he react to the death of his first wife and his adored little boy? We never know. Welles leaves it out – perhaps he is saying that Kane did not react, that he is too blank, too emotionally nullified, too spiritually deracinated to respond, having made his own complete and ruinous emotional investment in himself, the same egocentricity of self‑esteem culture and image management that has now been miniaturised and democratised in the age of social media. Kane has the plutocrat’s obsession with trying to control those around him in the way that he controls his media empire, whose purpose in turn is to control the way people think. And this is the final unspoken moral of Citizen Kane: a terrible tragedy of ownership and egotism – a narcissistic drowning. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 30 | https://slideplayer.com/slide/12898855/ | en | Citizen Kane ppt download | [
"https://slideplayer.com/static/blue_design/img/logo_slideplayer.png",
"https://slideplayer.com/static/blue_design/img/slide-loader4.gif",
"https://slideplayer.com/slide/12898855/78/images/1/Citizen+Kane+1941.jpg",
"https://slideplayer.com/slide/12898855/78/images/2/Citizen+Kane+Deep+Focus%3A+filming+a+scene+... | [] | [] | [
"Citizen Kane 1941."
] | null | [
"Kane",
"Welles",
"Orson Welles",
"Hearst",
"Charles Foster Kane",
"Mankiewicz",
"Susan Alexander Kane",
"Gregg Toland",
"Jedediah Leland",
"Bernstein"
] | null | Citizen Kane Deep Focus: filming a scene with every part in focus: foreground, middle, and background. When the deep focus effect was impossible, Welles would shoot the scene multiple times, focusing on different areas, then layer the film together. | https://slideplayer.com/slide/12898855/ | Presentation on theme: "Citizen Kane 1941."— Presentation transcript:
1 Citizen Kane 1941
2 Citizen Kane Deep Focus: filming a scene with every part in focus: foreground, middle, and background. When the deep focus effect was impossible, Welles would shoot the scene multiple times, focusing on different areas, then layer the film together.
3 Citizen Kane Montage: series of short shots are edited into a sequence to condense space, time, and information.
4 Production Lived 1915 – 1985 Gained fame in 1938 during a radio broadcast of H.G. Wells science fiction classic The War of the Worlds. He set up his broadcast as a news bulletin, many listeners believed there really was an alien attack in progress, causing small scale panic. While the broadcast was lambasted by newspapers and the FCC, it established Welles as a dramatist. His radio production group, called The Mercury Theater, would later become his film company.
5 Citizen Kane Released in 1941 Genre: Drama, Biographical
Directed by Orson Welles Writers*: Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles
6 Citizen Kane Cinematographer: Gregg Toland
Producer: Orson Welles, Mercury Productions Editor: Robert Wise Composer: Bernard Herrmann Distributer: RKO Pictures
7 Cast Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane
8 Cast Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland
Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane
9 Cast Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein
George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher
10 Citizen Kane Filming: June 29 – October 24, 1940
Budget: $500,000 (spent $839,727) Box Office: not a ton Profit: not a ton
11 Citizen Kane Summary: After newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane’s death, a reporter is assigned to decipher his final word, “Rosebud.” He learns fragments of Kane’s life through the people who were close to him. *Based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, a newspaper tycoon.
12 Characters Charles Foster Kane Mr. Thompson (reporter)
Susan Alexander Kane (ex-wife) Mr. Thatcher (caregiver) Mr. Bernstein (manager) Jedidiah Leland (friend)
13 Setting Late 1800s (childhood) – early 1940s (death) New York City
14 Action Kane dies, reporters want to investigate his final word, “rosebud.” Interview ex-wife Susan Alexander Kane – she is very upset about his death. Read transcripts of Mr. Thatcher to learn about Kane’s childhood. As a young adult, Kane takes over the NY Inquirer and turns it into more of a tabloid than a paper
15 Action Kane marries Emily (president’s niece), they have a son. He runs for governor, but a news story saying he was “caught in love nest with ‘singer’” was released the morning before election, and he lost. Kane marries Susan and forces her into an opera career. She resents him for his control over her, and eventually leaves him. We discover “rosebud” refers to a sled from his childhood (innocence, carefree).
16 Problem Reporters research newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane’s final word, “rosebud.” They must interview everyone who was ever close to him.
17 Outcome Although Mr. Thompson (reporter) doesn’t get answers to what “rosebud” means, the camera shows Kane’s childhood sled being burned with the name “rosebud” across it.
18 Production 1. Citizen Kane was Welles’ first motion picture. He signed a contract with RKO Productions. 2. Welles had complete control over story, casting, and editing as long as the budget was below $500,000. The contract was to direct two films. Screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz was recovering from a car accident when Welles approached him to write Kane.
19 Production 3. Mankiewicz & Welles collaborated on a story, deciding to tell a fictionalized account of the life of publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst. They also added details from the lives of real life tycoons Howard Hughes and Samuel Insull. Mankiewicz had been a friend of Hearst’s, but the two had a falling out. 4. During production the film was referred to as RKO-281 to keep its subject matter secret and avoid lawsuits from the real people on which it was loosely based.
20 Production Welles prevented RKO executives from visiting the set, knowing they would want to reduce his budget and control the story. The film ended up costing more than $300,000 over their initial budget. 5. Due to his running over budget and offending the studio execs he was never again afforded such creative freedoms.
21 Cinematography Welles innovated several kinds of camera effects while filming Citizen Kane. Deep Focus – filming a scene with every part in focus, foreground, middle, and background. Also known as “pan focus”. When the Deep Focus effect was impossible, Welles would shoot the scene multiple times, focusing on different areas, then layer the film together.
22 Cinematography Other times he would use a matte shot
Film the foreground with the background in darkness . . . . . . Then darken the foreground to film the enlightened background . . . . . . Then combine the two shots. Another unorthodox method used in the film was the way low-angle shots were used to display a point of view facing upwards, thus allowing ceilings to be shown in the background of several scenes.
23 Storytelling The events in Citizen Kane do not happen in chronological order. The story is told as a series of flashbacks as people who lived and worked with Kane are questioned by a reporter. The reporter is trying to figure out the significance of Kane’s final word before his death, “Rosebud”. 6. Welles used the montage style of editing to illustrate the passage of long expanses of time.
24 Reception Welles kept a closed set, restricted access to dailies, and put out false publicity materials saying the film was the story Faust. RKO hoped for a mid-February 1941 release. Friday magazine ran an article drawing point-by-point comparisons between Kane and Hearst and documented how Welles had led on Louella Parsons, Hollywood correspondent for Hearst papers, and made a fool of her in public. Soon after, Parsons called George Schaefer and threatened RKO with a lawsuit if they released Kane.
25 Reception The Hollywood Reporter ran a front-page story on January 13 that Hearst papers were about to run a series of editorials attacking Hollywood's practice of hiring refugees and immigrants for jobs that could be done by Americans. The goal was to put pressure on the other studios in order to force RKO to shelve Kane. Hearing about the film enraged Hearst so much that he banned any advertising, reviewing, or mentioning of it in his papers, and had his journalists libel Welles.
26 Reception 7. Upon its release, Citizen Kane was a modest success. The documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for Citizen Kane's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable. Nevertheless, the film's commercial performance fell short of its creators' expectations.
27 Reception Welles claimed that during opening week, a policeman approached him one night and told him: "Do not go to your hotel room tonight; Hearst has set up an undressed, underage girl to leap into your arms when you enter and a photographer to take pictures of you. Hearst is planning to publish it in all of his papers.” Welles thanked the man and stayed out all night. However, it is not confirmed whether this was true.
28 Reception The day following the premiere of Citizen Kane, The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote that "... it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood." Count on Mr. Welles: he doesn't do things by halves Upon the screen he discovered an area large enough for his expansive whims to have free play. And the consequence is that he has made a picture of tremendous and overpowering scope, not in physical extent so much as in its rapid and graphic rotation of thoughts. Mr. Welles has put upon the screen a motion picture that really moves.
29 Reception Critic James Agate was decidedly negative in an October 1941 review, countering the superlatives given Citizen Kane by critics C. A. Lejeune and Dilys Powell. "Now imagine my horror, which includes self-distrust, at seeing no more in this film than the well-intentioned, muddled, amateurish thing one expects from high-brows. (Mr. Orson Welles's height of brow is enormous.) ... I thought the photography quite good, but nothing to write to Moscow about, the acting middling, and the whole thing a little dull.” Agate continued his review two weeks later: Citizen Kane has entirely ousted the war as conversation fodder. Waiters ask me what I think of it, and the post is full of it. ... You know now that all the vulgar beef, beer and tobacco barons are vulgar because when they were about seven years of age somebody came and took away their skates. That is one explanation of this alleged world-shaking masterpiece, Citizen Kane. Another point of view is that Citizen Kane is so great a masterpiece that it doesn't need explaining. ... In the meantime I continue to steer a middle course. I regard Citizen Kane as a quite good film which tries to run the psychological essay in harness with your detective thriller, and doesn't quite succeed.
30 Awards Citizen Kane received nine Academy Award nominations
Outstanding Motion Picture – RKO Radio Pictures (Orson Welles, Producer) Best Director – Orson Welles Best Actor – Orson Welles Best Writing (Original Screenplay) – Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration (Black-and-White) – Perry Ferguson, Van Nest Polglase, A. Roland Fields, Darrell Silvera Best Film Editing – Robert Wise Best Cinematography (Black-and-White) – Gregg Toland Best Music (Score of a Dramatic Picture) – Bernard Herrmann Best Sound Recording – John O. Aalberg
31 Awards 8. Citizen Kane received 9 Academy Award nominations, but received only one: Best Original Screenplay.
32 Awards Citizen Kane was ranked number one in the American Film Institute's polls of film industry artists and leaders in and 2007. "Rosebud" was chosen the 17th most memorable movie quotation in a 2005 AFI poll. The film's score was one of 250 nominees for the top 25 film scores in American cinema in another 2005 AFI poll. The film currently has a 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 66 reviews by approved critics.
33 Journal #109 5/16/16 What do you think the significance of Kane’s last word, “Rosebud,” might be?
34 Journal #110 5/17/16 Name 3 things you know about Charles Foster Kane’s personality from what we’ve seen so far.
35 Journal #111 5/18/16 What aspects of the film (think narrative structure, cinematography, editing, etc) do you think make this one of the best films of all time? Be specific. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 29 | http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/citizenkane.htm | en | Citizen Kane Blu | http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-ray_reviews_79/creature_features_blu-ray_/run-amok-980.jpg | [
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/2/become_a_patron_button-50.jpg",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/ads/banner_top.gif",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/ads/top-main1.jpg",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/banners/main-bann.jpg",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/ads/bottom-main.jpg",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/ads/banne... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | I'm going to work my way through much more of this incredible package and report more (example - I am assuming the second disc 'The Battle Over Citizen Kane' is the exact single-layered one as in the 2002 release). We also assume this transfer etc. is the exact same as in the Ambersons included one (found HERE) - but we will report if we find any discrepancies. As for now this has our recommendation!
***
ON THE DVDs: The Universal PAL edition has aptly been called the "Technical Edition" of Citizen Kane on DVD. It shows wonderful film grain. The Warner NTSC version has been brightened, enough for scholars to notice in some shadowy scenes. The sound in the Warner is quite poor where the Universal has been beefed up a bit. The Ken Barnes commentary on the PAL edition focuses quite heavily on the technical aspects which is certainly important and illuminating. Bogdanovich and Ebert's commentary on the Warner is likewise interesting and informative. I can't rightly say one is "better" than the other, but I personally enjoyed the Warner more.
The Universal version is less smooth in comparison (look at the newspaper text in the first large capture). I found the PAL version so dark that it actually eliminates some information from the screen (see the head on the right side of the 3rd large capture). I can't help but feel the Universal is saturated as well as having the PAL speedup issue which is not adhering to an original viewing experience. I expect the debate with "Kane" scholars can go on indefinitely. What would have been best would be the integrity and film grain of the Universal (and sound!) and the detail and clarity of the Warner... and the Extras of both... and no PAL speedup... and no cropping. I expect that true buffs (and there are many!) should buy both versions. It is nice at least for the rest of us to have a choice.
NOTE (from this HTF Forum thread - Andrew Markworthy): the scene in Bernstein's office (Chapter 9 in the R2 edition, I think Chapter 10 in the R1) there is rain coming down pretty heavily outside, which you can see through the window - or at least, you *should* be able to see it. In the R1 version, you can see the rain coming down in the top third of the window, but after that the rain seems to disappear. The allegation is that the digital clean-up was over-zealous and erased the rain, thinking it was visual noise.
Okay, cut to the chase - in the new R2 version you can see *exactly* what's going on. Outside is a light source that makes the upper third of the rain brighter, so it's far easier to see. The lower two thirds are visible, but in contrast, this portion is much dimmer than the top third (indeed, you see rather more of the rain running down the window). I think that what Greg Tolland (the cinematographer) was trying to do here was to give an impression of an illuminated sign or logo outside the window, as you see on the side of big corporate HQ buildings. These are always placed high up on buildings, and of course Bernstein, being the big cheese, will have an office high up the building. I think this is yet another example of the meticulous planning that went into CK, right down to the subtle reinforcement by visual cues. It didn't have to be there, but it just adds that slight extra edge. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 6 | https://citizenkanebook.com/citizen-kane-faq/ | en | Citizen Kane: FAQ | [
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/citizen_kane_a_film_makers_journey_portrait_logo_no_shadow.png",
"https://themecanon.com/booker/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/about.jpg",
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rosebud-19.gif",
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/upload... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2018-06-26T04:51:36+00:00 | The complete story of the greatest film ever made | en | Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker's Journey | https://citizenkanebook.com/citizen-kane-faq/ | “It’ll probably turn out to be a very simple thing.”
(How Rawlston, the head of the newsreel company, explains to his reporter Thompson
the quest to learn the secret of Kane’s last word: “Rosebud.”)
Citizen Kane may be the most studied and discussed motion pictures of all time. But over the decades many unanswered questions have persisted, and inaccuracies about the film have emerged that worked their way into print and online.
Here are answers to some of the most commonly-asked questions and misunderstood issues about Citizen Kane, along with some dispelled myths.
These issues are explored in detail with new information in Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey by Harlan Lebo, the book that explores the extraordinary story of the production of this classic film, using previously unpublished material from studio files, and exclusive interviews with the last surviving members of the cast and crew.
In brief, what is the story of the making of Citizen Kane?
Was Orson Welles a novice at filmmaking when he arrived in Hollywood?
Did Orson Welles have full creative control of his first films?
Who wrote the script for Citizen Kane: Herman J. Mankiewicz
or Orson Welles?
Were all of the innovative filmmaking techniques in Citizen Kane new
to the movies?
What was unusual about the actors in Citizen Kane?
Is the character of Charles Foster Kane based entirely on
William Randolph Hearst?
How did the Hearst organization try to destroy Citizen Kane?
Is Susan Alexander, Kane’s second wife, based on Marion Davies,
Hearst’s mistress?
Is William Randolph Hearst actually mentioned in Citizen Kane?
Does San Simeon, the real-life estate built by Hearst,
appear in Citizen Kane?
What buildings were used for Xanadu?
Did Citizen Kane lose money?
Did Gregg Toland, the renowned cinematographer who shot Citizen Kane,
appear in the film?
Did some non-actors appear in Citizen Kane?
Did Nat King Cole, the legendary jazz performer, appear in Citizen Kane?
Is it true that the face of the reporter seeking “Rosebud” is never seen?
When Citizen Kane first released, was it a flop with the critics?
What did the critics say about Citizen Kane when it premiered in 1941?
What was the biggest mystery about the filming of Citizen Kane?
Does a final script exist for Citizen Kane?
_________________________
In brief, what is the story of the making of Citizen Kane?
The story of Citizen Kane is the account of the creation of a film masterpiece—how it was produced and how it was almost destroyed.
It tells of Orson Welles, a brilliant 24-year-old star on Broadway and radio, who came to Hollywood in 1939 as a novice filmmaker and received near-total creative control of his productions. Welles’ first motion picture was Citizen Kane, which was acclaimed as a groundbreaking achievement and a cinematic milestone.
But the story of Citizen Kane is also a sinister tale of conspiracy, extortion, and witch hunts: it is the chronicle of a plot by the organization of William Randolph Hearst—concerned about the portrayal of lead character Charles Foster Kane—to prevent the film’s release or destroy it.
Citizen Kane survived, but Hearst’s pressure ruined any chance for the initial success of the film. As a result, Citizen Kane sank into obscurity for more than a decade.
However, in the 1950s, renewed awareness of the film increased its prominence. Citizen Kane rose in stature, and would become recognized as the greatest film ever made.
back to top
_____
Was Orson Welles a novice at filmmaking
when he arrived in Hollywood?
Welles came to RKO without experience as a Hollywood filmmaker, but he was not as unprepared for motion picture production as 1939 publicity and film history have suggested.
Welles had already gained some modest filmmaking experience: the footage he shot in 1938 for Too Much Johnson, intended to be shown between acts for his abortive revival of the William Gillette play, offers hints of a budding filmmaker.
Welles delighted in experimenting with makeup, costumes, and lighting. And unlike many theatrical directors, Welles viewed the stage not as a flat space, but as a three-dimensional platform: his direction featured interplay of character movement, overlapping dialogue, distinctive lighting, and vivid designs.
More important was Welles’ experience as a writer and editor, especially editing complex material to its essence under the unyielding pressure of broadcast deadlines—skills that would become vital in film production.
back to top
_____
Did Orson Welles have full creative control of his first films?
Mostly yes, but not the absolute control that is sometimes recalled.
When Orson Welles came to the movie business as a filmmaking novice, his contract with RKO Radio Pictures gave him the right of sole supervision and control—but he did not have absolute freedom.
Welles’ full creative control only applied if he kept his budget for a film under $500,000. If the costs rose above $500,000—as they did for Citizen Kane—RKO retained the right to approve the budget and the story.
But even if production costs rose above $500,000, Welles could produce, direct, write, and star in his projects, or any combination of those jobs he chose, and spend studio money at his discretion. And most important of all, Welles alone controlled the final cut of the film.
back to top
____________________
Who wrote the script for Citizen Kane:
Herman J. Mankiewicz or Orson Welles?
Debate about the authorship of the script of Citizen Kane—who was responsible, Herman Mankiewicz (the writer assigned to create the first draft) or producer-director-star Orson Welles—has boiled since before the film was released.
The debate continued in large part because of an essay written in 1971 by critic Pauline Kael (the essay and Kael’s reputation were later discredited because of her unprofessional methods and plagarism in creating the essay).
Director and film historian Peter Bogdanovich wrote a rebuttal to Kael’s essay that credited both Mankiewicz and Welles for writing the script. Scholar Robert Carringer reviewed the seven official drafts of the script and concluded that Welles’ role in the writing was “substantial.”
However, Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey reveals that Welles was even more involved in writing long after the supposedly final script was complete. The studio-approved script contained many pages of unnecessary plot points and wordy dialogue, and it is not constructed in the style of the final film. After production of the film began, many key scenes that needed to be condensed or cut entirely, and more than 10 minutes of scenes that would eventually appear in the film had not yet been written.
Lebo found that all of these scenes were written late in production by Welles, often—as he did for his earlier radio broadcasts—at the last moment on the set during final rehearsals.
back to top
____________________
Were all of the innovative filmmaking techniques in Citizen Kane new to the movies?
No. The biggest misconception about Citizen Kane is that the film includes techniques that were new and used here for the first time. The legendary filmmaking techniques in Citizen Kane—deep focus photography, shooting from low angles, ceilings visible in many shots, the seamless movement of action from scene to scene, and many other methods—were had been used in other films before they appeared in Citizen Kane in 1941.
However, what was new about Citizen Kane is how Orson Welles and his creative team applied these techniques to tell their story in innovative, imaginative ways.
For Welles, the cinematography and design were not simply tools to make a movie. Welles’ goal was for every shot, the entire design, and all of the photographic techniques employed in Citizen Kane to be key parts of the story itself.
Welles and cinematographer Gregg Toland developed their goals for the production, and then—unlike most Hollywood production teams—sought answers to storytelling problems through inventive photographic methods.
“From the moment the production began to take shape in script form,” Toland recalled, “everything was planned with reference to what the camera could bring to the eyes of the audience.”
back to top
____________________
What was unusual about the actors in Citizen Kane?
The lead performers in Citizen Kane shared a common characteristic that was critical in Welles’ plans: most of them were new to motion pictures. Their lack of familiarity with film production allowed Welles to encourage performances that most seasoned Hollywood actors would have found unacceptable from an unconventional first-time director.
“I could never have made Citizen Kane with actors who were old hands at cinema,” Welles said, “we thought they would show us up and change the dimension of the film. My being a newcomer would have put them on guard and would have made a mess of the film. It was possible because I had my own family, so to speak.”
Or, Welles said bluntly of his actors in a later interview, “they didn’t have terrible movie habits.”
back to top
____________________
Is the character of Charles Foster Kane based entirely on real-life publisher William Randolph Hearst?
The idea that the character of Kane is based only on publisher and scandal-journalist William Randolph Hearst is so ingrained in the lore of Citizen Kane that the full story is often obscured.
William Randolph Hearst was indeed the principal model for the fictional Charles Foster Kane. However, Hearst was not the sole model; Kane shares characteristics with several other American business leaders besides Hearst, including, among many, newspaper executives Joseph Pulitzer, Charles Dana, and Robert McCormick; Kodak chairman Jules Brulatour, and business executive Samuel Insull.
However, Lebo points that whether Kane was based solely or partially on Hearst, the most volatile evidence that supported the plot by the Hearst organization to suppress Citizen Kane were scenes in the fictional “News on the March” newsreel that appeared in the first 10 minutes of the film—scenes that identify Kane as a newspaper baron who owned a hilltop palace with a private zoo, who acquired a huge art collection, and who urged his country into the Spanish-American War—all high-visibility real-life facts about Hearst as well.
After viewing those scenes, for Hedda Hopper, Louella Parsons, and the Hearst lawyers, who went to screenings already assuming Kane was Hearst, any evidence in the film that pointed to other possible models for Kane was irrelevant.
back to top
____________________
How did the Hearst organization try to destroy Citizen Kane?
As usually reported, the eruption over Citizen Kane within the Hearst organization supposedly began after a rough cut of the film was viewed in January 1941 by Hollywood columnists Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons.
However, Lebo found that the plot against Welles, RKO, and Citizen Kane began long before Hopper and Parsons saw the film.
Lebo learned that the Hearst organization—working under the direction of the corporation’s senior leadership and with the knowledge of Hearst himself—had been planning to disrupt the film since company officials began to suspect four months earlier that the Kane character was modeled on Hearst.
Lebo found letters and memos in Hearst’s personal papers that reveal a thoroughly-planned conspiracy to suppress the film’s release: the Hearst organization schemed with movie theater executives to prevent exhibition; blocked ads in Hearst publications for RKO films; banned all mention of Citizen Kane; attempted to buy and destroy the original film negative; threatened to expose private foibles of Hollywood stars; and used its newspaper staffs to attempt to attempt to frame him for communist affiliation and potential draft-dodging.
In addition, Parsons, a supposedly-objective journalist, pressured studio executives to encourage RKO to shelve the film, and threatened theater owners with boycotts of coverage in her column if they screened Citizen Kane.
Lebo also found evidence that the Hearst organization colluded with Congressional investigators who were hunting Communists in Hollywood: correspondence in the Hearst files showed company executives describing Welles as being “a pretty bad boy” who was “mixed up with the Leftists.”
back to top
____________________
Is Susan Alexander, Kane’s second wife, based on
Marion Davies, Hearst’s mistress?
As with Kane and Hearst, the character of Susan Alexander shares both similarities and differences with real-life Marion Davies, the long-time mistress of William Randolph Hearst. The biggest difference was their personalities: Susan was weak, insecure, and a failure as a singer—much different in temperament from Marion, who was strong, outgoing, and successful as an actress.
back to top
____________________
Is William Randolph Hearst mentioned in Citizen Kane?
Yes. A point missed during the early controversy over Citizen Kane was that Hearst is actually mentioned in the film as a real-life figure in Kane’s fictional world.
Early in the movie, during the scene in the projection room after the screening of News on the March newsreel, Rawlston, the head of the newsreel company, and his staff are discussing Kane’s impact on America. Rawlston asks his staff about Kane, “But how is he different from Ford? Or Hearst, for that matter? Or John Doe?”
Rawlston’s line flies by so fast in Welles’ swift pacing of the screening room dialogue that on first viewing, few hear the reference to Hearst.
back to top
____________________
Does San Simeon, the real-life palace built by Hearst,
appear in Citizen Kane?
No. San Simeon, the estate built by William Randolph Hearst on 300,000 acres in the hills along the central California coast, is never shown in Citizen Kane.
This notion probably came from the fact that photos of San Simeon can be found in the files of Mercury Theatre (Welles’ production company). But these photos were used during production of the film to establish how the fictional Xanadu should be positioned on a mountain top (In the Citizen Kane story, Xanadu, situated on the naturally-flat Florida coast, was built on a man-made mountain).
back to top
____________________
What buildings were used for Xanadu?
Many of the “buildings” used for Xanadu were not structures at all: they were special effects, models, or paintings, such the opening scenes of Citizen Kane that show Xanadu and its grounds, and the closing scenes that show the smoke billowing from the furnace fire that burned the relics of Kane’s life.
In the “News on the March” newsreel at the beginning of Citizen Kane, buildings intended to be Xanadu include structures on the RKO studio lot, as well as several real buildings: among the mansions shown in the newsreel is “Oheka Castle,” the estate built on Long Island by investment banker Otto Kahn (Oheka Castle is the first estate shown in the newsreel).
Most of the shots of Xanadu in the newsreel are snippets of buildings constructed for the 1915 Panama-California International Exposition at Balboa Park in San Diego; the buildings today look the same as they did in 1940 when filmed for Citizen Kane. (Some of the brief glimpses of Kane’s animal collections, such as the large bird sanctuary, were filmed at the San Diego Zoo, adjacent to Balboa Park.)
Unfortunately for Welles, the exposition buildings in San Diego were constructed in the same Mediterranean Revival style as Hearst’s San Simeon, and on first glance in the film could easily be mistaken for the real-life palace—providing added ammunition for the Hearst-is-Kane factions in 1941.
back to top
____________________
Did Gregg Toland, the cinematographer who shot Citizen Kane, appear in the film?
No. This is a fallacy that showed up on a website a few years ago, and has since spread.
Toland supposedly appeared in the “News on the March” newsreel near the beginning of the film, as the radio reporter who interviews the elderly Charles Foster Kane about the prospects for war in Europe. The reporter was actually played by Guy Repp, a bit player who appeared in a dozen films from 1939 to 1977, and was lucky enough to earn a speaking role in Citizen Kane. Repp bears a slight resemblances to Toland.
back to top
____________________
Did some non-actors appear in Citizen Kane?
Yes. Several members of the film’s production staff did perform in Citizen Kane, including assistant director Richard Wilson, who appears in the projection room scenes and as a reporter at Xanadu; associate producer Richard Baer, who also appeared in the projection room scenes and as an official at Kane’s campaign speech; and Welles’ personal assistant Kathryn Trosper, who played as a reporter at Xanadu.
back to top
____________________
Did Nat King Cole, the legendary jazz performer,
appear in Citizen Kane?
No. This is another story that has flourished since it started to appear online. But its origins may have come from a misunderstood interview with Orson Welles.
Welles told a reporter that for the scenes of Kane’s group picnic in the Everglades, he used the song “In a Mizz”—in particular the “It Can’t Be Love” section of the lyrics—after seeing the song performed by the King Cole Trio at a Los Angeles nightclub. “I kind of based the whole scene around that song,” Welles said.
But some film historians have interpreted Welles’ comment to mean that Nat King Cole actually performs in Citizen Kane, presumably playing the piano off camera in Susan Alexander’s nightclub—a theory that has crept into many studies and websites about the film. But the production records for Citizen Kane show that Cole had no involvement in the production.
back to top
____________________
Is it true that the face of the reporter seeking “Rosebud”
is never seen?
William Alland, who played reporter Jerry Thompson, is sometimes remembered as the character in Citizen Kane whose face never appears on-screen, because in most of his scenes he is shown in partial shadow or seen from behind his left shoulder.
The idea that Alland’s face is not shown is the result of Citizen Kane for years being screened with the low-quality 16-millimeter prints of the film in art houses and in even lower-quality television broadcasts in the 1950s and 1960s. Because of this, several film historians stated flatly that Alland’s face is never seen and analyzed his role in the film from that perspective.
However, in crisp prints of the film, and in viewings of the Blu-ray and high-definition broadcasts, Alland’s face appears quite clearly during the scenes in the projection room when he argues with Rawlston about the importance of Rosebud, as well as in the Thatcher Library when he is reading the lawyer’s memoirs and he slams the volume shut.
Nevertheless, for most of his appearances, Alland is shown from behind and to his left, and he often joked about being the “unknown man” in the Citizen Kane cast. When Alland was introduced to the audience after the Los Angeles premiere, he said, “Perhaps you’ll recognize me better like this,” and turned his back to the crowd.
back to top
____________________
Did Citizen Kane lose money?
Yes, but it didn’t lose much.
In the spring of 1942, when Citizen Kane was withdrawn from general circulation, the film was listed on RKO’s books at a loss of more than $150,000—all things considered, not a bad showing, especially when the impact of hundreds of theaters refusing to show the film because of pressure from the Hearst organization are figured into the accounting.
back to top
____________________
When Citizen Kane was first released, was it a flop with the critics?
Not at all. In fact, Citizen Kane received an outpouring of accolades and enthusiastic commentary unlike anything ever written about a film—not simply positive reviews, but acclaim for Citizen Kane as a groundbreaking production and a milestone in the development of the motion picture.
The notion that Citizen Kane was not a critical success when it debuted may come from its limited financial success (see the previous question). As a result of the film’s box office performance—and not critics’ opinions—Citizen Kane sank into obscurity for the first half of the 1950s.
Then, the emergence of film schools and critical appraisal of motion pictures in the United States, and the recognition that Citizen Kane had begun to receive in Europe, helped re-establish in the mid-1950s what the original audiences in 1941 already knew: that Citizen Kane was a cinematic masterpiece.
back to top
____________________
What did the critics say about Citizen Kane when it premiered?
Here are some of the original reviews that appeared after Citizen Kane in May 1941:
“Now that the wraps are off, it can be safely stated that suppression of this film would have been a crime. Citizen Kane is far and away the most surprising and cinematically exciting motion picture to be seen here in many a moon. As a matter of fact, it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood.” (The New York Times)
“Citizen Kane has found important new techniques in picture making and story-telling. Artful and artfully artless, it is not afraid to say the same thing twice if twice-telling reveals a fourfold truth.” (Time)
“After you’ve seen Orson Welles’ first film, you’ll wonder what all the controversy is about, because it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference whether it is or isn’t about William Randolph Hearst or any other individual. What matters is that Citizen Kane is a cinema masterpiece.” (New York World-Telegram)
“Seeing Citizen Kane, it’s as if you never really saw a movie before; no movie has ever grabbed you, pummeled you, socked you on the button with the vitality, the accuracy, the impact, the professional aim, that this one does.” (PM)
At the the Hollywood Reporter, publisher W. R. Wilkerson—author of the harshest denunciation of Welles when he came to Hollywood in 1939—happily apologized for his early criticism.
“When [RKO studio chief] George Schaefer came along with Orson Welles and the latter’s authority to produce, write, direct and star, we believed it too much to ask of any individual and suggested that Mr. Schaefer was just plain nuts,” Wilkerson wrote in his column. “However, the nearest approach that anyone ever came to a batting average of one thousand in the delivery of entertainment for the screen, Orson Welles accomplished with Citizen Kane.
“We criticized George Schaefer, we condemned Orson Welles, we ridiculed even the thought of what they attempted to do; we must now retract much of it. Where there was criticism, we now come to praise. Where there was condemnation, we now feel compelled to eulogize.”
back to top
____________________
What was the biggest mystery about the filming of Citizen Kane?
For more than 70 years, the unknown story about Citizen Kane was: why is the finished film so much different from the supposedly “final” script?
In the final script—approved by the studio only days before production began—several key scenes were not yet written, and many other sections needed to be condensed or cut entirely.
No study of Citizen Kane had explored the development of the script beyond the seven studio-approved drafts and the final script—until now.
In Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker’s Journey, Lebo describes an additional draft that was prepared after the final shooting script: copies of this “lost” draft are in the libraries at the University of Wisconsin and the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Called the “Correction Script” in the MOMA files, this draft is the closest possible version of a final shooting script for Citizen Kane.
back to top
____________________
Does a final script exist for Citizen Kane?
As Raymond the butler says in Citizen Kane, “Umm — yes and no.”
The Correction Script created by Welles shows that he deleted many pages of wordy dialogue and unnecessary plot points that appeared in the supposedly final studio-approved script. As a result, Welles cut more than 20 minutes of unnecessary material. And much of the Correction Script was shot as written.
However, even the “Correction Script” did not solve many problems, and holes in the plot were not yet filled. Lebo showed that to complete the final film, Welles did two things—first, he created solutions in Hollywood the same way he prepared his Broadway productions and radio broadcasts: for Citizen Kane, almost every scene was reworked extensively by Welles while filming—often at the last moment on the set during final rehearsals.
Second, to fill the gaps remaining in the script and build up Kane’s personality, Welles created four key scenes from scratch just days before shooting them. All of these scenes involved lawyer Thatcher and his interactions with Kane: these scenes include seven brief shots of a frustrated Thatcher reading headlines from Kane’s New York Inquirer, and a scene four decades later during the Depression when Kane, bankrupt, signs over his crumbling empire to Thatcher’s financial control.
Unfortunately, the script pages for these last-minute scenes do not exist—or have not yet turned up. So for now, the Correction Script is the “final” script for Citizen Kane.
back to top
_________________________
____________________ | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 73 | https://socialistdemocracy.org/Reviews/ReviewTheBattleOverCitizenKane.html | en | Review: The Battle Over Citizen Kane | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Socialist Democracy"
] | null | null | WBGH DVD
Gerry Fitzpatrick
26 March 2008
This documentary was part of the American Lives series and was first broadcast on WBGH TV Boston (one of the smaller and better networks in the Eastern United States). It is a very well crafted examination of the actor director Orson Welles and of William Randolph Hurst the newspaper magnate who was the intended target of Welles film Citizen Kane (RKO1941).
There is a sketch that Orson Welles once did of the Gate Theatre in Dublin in 1928. From it we can see the well observed detail of the façade. The handling betrays a lightness of touch and must have been done at one short sitting. It is of course a Welless souvenir of his first successes and the great time he had spent acting in the company of Hilton Edwards and Michael MacLiammor. Following the death of his father, Welles had been given some time to roam by his guardian. One of the first places he went was Dublin. Welles appearances on the Dublin stage at age fifteen soon became part of the Welles mythology and his seeming to have arrived fully formed.
The documentary examines both lives and the myths that surrounded both Hurst and Welles. In Welles case it all but gives up trying to deconstruct the myth of Orson Welles as most of the stories that were told about him were true. For he had indeed become famous for his production of the Black Macbeth in Harlem (1936) and he had indeed travelled around New York in a series of ambulances between radio studios doing bit parts to finance his various projects. When he finally got to direct his own radio show in 1938, he made most of America think that it had just been invaded by aliens. And it is also true, that that broadcast earned him a Hollywood contract that had never been awarded to anyone before or since. All true. But it is in the uncovering of the finer details of both mens careers that this documentary really shines. Some of which are quite shocking. These are mostly about Hurst who damaged much more than just a few hotel rooms in his time.
William Randolph Hurst, Amateur Demagogue
Hurst was, as the commentary states, a typical 19th century business leader who believed that American capitalism formed a kind of progress that could only be of social benefit. He invented most of the populist and jingoist tone of what became known as the yellow press (named after a yellow cartoon character that Hurst and his rival Pulitzer both fought over and ended up publishing simultaneously in their papers). By the end of the 1890s America had become a place of the newly arrived immigrants. Hurst saw this as his growing constituency - both in terms of sales and later votes. Here the documentary cuts directly to Citizen Kane to show the scene when Kane is first starting out as an editor and how providing a war was his way of improving his political market share. Welles portrayal in this scene is a subtle mixture of comedy and Kanes destructive egoism. But it would be wrong to map this characterization over the real Hurst too directly, for the simple reason that Hurst was much worse than his famous film noir portrait.
Invading Cuba And American Lives
After the Spanish Empire had defeated the Cuban revolt in early 1898, there was no further action against Spain by Cubans. However, following the explosion which sank the US Maine in the Spanish held Philippines Americans followed Hursts (fiction based) war mongering and declared war on Spain. Animated by his own mania, Hurst demanded that he be given a war ship by the navy to invade Cuba. He was of course refused thus giving himself the green light to stage his own Cuban invasion with journalists and a movie camera. Hurst then fought in the war and was now both making and reporting the news. However, he also made the news in ways that he wished he hadnt. By the turn of the century his papers had become so rabid, as the documentary states, that they had on two occasions called for the President to be assassinated (McKinley had opposed war with Spain which was the sole cause of Hursts fury against him). When President McKinley was assassinated in September 1901, it effectively proved to be the end of Hursts political ambitions. Despite huge loss of business that followed this scandal and being burned in effigy; it did not stop Hurst running for New York Mayor, for New York Governor and for the Presidency.
Not Sticking To The Script
Hurst never much stuck to other peoples scripts, because he thought that - as he was writing it it would become true. Even when Hurst was refused the Democratic Partys nomination for president he formed his own party and ran anyway.
When it came to giving an account of the disasters of Hursts ego, Welles and his script writer the great Herman Mankiewicz were modest. They show the history of a life at the beginning of Citizen Kane in news reel form. What emerges is a strange, rather inconsistent man who was something of riddle that the film set out solve - the rosebud that must be deadheaded.
Hurst of course was nether inconsistent or an enigma. Citizen Kane shows Kane having a hand in starting the Spanish American War, opposing the First World War, endorsing Adolph Hitler and then later removing that endorsement. Hurst in reality actually represented the minority anti?internationalist isolationist faction of the American ruling class. Not only opposing American involved in the WW1 but also the League of Nations. His support for and participation in the American invasion of Cuba was pure chauvinistic opportunism. For him the invasion of Cuba was a local dispute a stance perfectly consistent with his and later the White Houses isolationism (America took Cuba as a protectorate after a peace was signed with the Spanish Empire in August 1898).
When Kane is interviewed after returning from visiting European leaders including Adolph Hitler, something of the truth of Hursts conservative isolationism is indicated. There will be no war the Kane character states rather smugly. Watching Kane give that denial amidst the bitter destruction of 1941 must have hit Hurst deeply when he saw it. He had supported Rosevelts (FDRs) administration isolationist stance for opportunist reasons but withdrew that support when FDRs Works Progress Administration began to give unemployment relief and tax the rich a little more effectively. The documentary cuts at this point to Hurst giving a speech against FDRs tax law. For someone of large stature and rather imposing stare, Hurst shrivels to nothing before our eyes, as he appears like a bumbling pasha waving his finger to the rhythm of his pip-squeak voice.
The Astonishing Mr Welles
Watching this we can only recall Welless performance (included here) before assembled press men who want him to answer for his production of the War of The Worlds, a production that had panicked and shaken America. Welles appears to be meekness itself, but his control of the baying crowd is astonishing. They are almost afraid to ask him questions. He begins softly, Im sorry he says to one of reporters, was there something you wanted me to say? This is far cry from the documentaries thesis that Hurst and Welles had similar personality flaws both showmen with an interest in destructive power of performance.
The difference is that Welles drew his strength from working collectively with people. He knew that the roles he played were dramatic creations and the quality of those performances depended on the audience being able to appreciate the difference between performance and reality - even if that realisation did come later - that was the point of the production. By contrast Hurst thought he could run America like a Buffalo Bill show and no one would be able to tell the difference. The documentary blames Welles for his victimization by Hurst and unfortunately persists in that logic to the point of absurdity. Welles may have suffered because of the battle over Citizen Kane by he was by no means beaten. To give an account of his years after Citizen Kane without reference to his other successful roles in The Lady From Shanghai and The Third Man is a gross distortion. It is also is distortion to say at the commentary does that Welles turned into the character of Kane. The fact is that if Welles had the power and the money that Kane or Hurst enjoyed American arts would have felt his positive influence for a generation. And that would have gone some way to redress the balance of the harm and the destruction rent by R.W. Hurst. The commentary insists that Hurst even at the time of Citizen Kane was a serious yet fun loving individual so unlike Kane. But the old ruin of a man that is Kane in his Xanadu is symbolically Hurst representing his crumbling empire built on ignorance and lies.
Hurst Goes To War Against Welles and Citizen Kane
Having once tried being an actor, Hurst ended up in California as a powerful promoter of Hollywood movies - a media role that had dire consequences for Welles and Citizen Kane. Once he learned of its content, Hurst used the hold he had over Hollywood to impress upon its studios that Citizen Kane must be destroyed. When Louis B. Mayer acting on behalf of Hurst offered RKO $800,000 to buy the print and all the negatives, so that Hurst could watch it burn, RKO refused. After that Hursts papers lead by the odious Luella Parsons, declared war on Citizen Kane and on Hollywood. Inventing scandal where there was none, his papers had twenty years before already brutally destroyed the career of Roscoe Arbuckle even although Arbuckle had been acquitted of murder of a female companion (she in fact died of peritonitis). Now Hurst and his papers hoped to create 1001 Roscoe Arbuckles.
To this end Hurst papers repeatedly suggested that Hollywood was a den of communist, homosexual, immigrant race mixers who should have no place in society. That indicated the true nature of Hursts operation and the depths of his papers reactionary depravity. The documentary goes some way to acknowledging this as it draws a clear connection between the references made in the Hurst papers to the influences of immigrants in Hollywood meaning the influence of Jews. It also as the documentary shows meant that Edgar Hoover created an FBI file on Welles - mostly consisting of cuttings from Hurst papers ..
No Ordinary Battle No Ordinary Fighter
This was no ordinary battle but Welles was no ordinary fighter. He had been beaten up by Communist Party thugs in 1936 after the CP had spread the vicious rumour that Welles was a racist who only wanted a black cast to stage a minstrel show. When Hurst charged Welles with Communism in 1941 he must have recalled that beating and how it did not stop him from producing one of the best productions of Macbeth ever staged. Now he went to New York to defend Citizen Kane. Most of the distributors had come to see the film and to use its content as an excuse to refuse to distribute it. But they didnt reckon on Welles giving one of best political speeches against censorship ever heard. He said that if the rejection of fascism meant anything it meant opposing political censorship. The distributors agreed to show the film. Welles won the argument but not this first Battle. Each time a theatre was about to show Kane Hurst papers made it clear that no advertising would be accepted from that theatre ever again. Theatres would schedule a showing then drop it at the last minute. RKO had no choice but to withdraw the film. Despite Hursts immense hold over the film industry, Citizen Kane was recognised by the industry and its critics as one of the best film ever made. In the face of tremendous opposition it was nominated in all major categories at the academy awards, winning best sound and best screen play for Welles and Mankiewicz.
However Welles as a consequence had control of his next film The Magnificent Ambersons, taken from him and he was never allowed to make a Hollywood picture again. RKO rewrote its advertising to state that an RKO picture was, Entertainment In The Place Of Genius. That meant as Welles himself said in 1982, that when you bought an RKO picture you didnt get Orson Welles. Hurst died ten years after the release of Citizen Kane in 1951. But Kane lived on to fight another day. After French critics of the New Wave in the 1950s like François Truffaut started to write about how special the film was, it began to be shown again in Europe. By the early 1960s it remained top of film critics lists of best films and has stayed there for over forty years. Shown many times on television released on video and DVD, it finally was allowed to make more than its money back.
The Achievement of Welles & Mankiewicz on Citizen Kane
Looking at it today it is more than a product of the radical WPA culture of the late 1930s. It is also more than the sum of the scenes that Mankiewicz witnessed in Hurst Households (he was a friend of Marian Davis, Hursts live in mistress). It endures for a number of reasons first because Welles own closely observed and very personal characterisation of Kane. It succeeds by suggesting a rather dire disparity that Hurst had for one man done so much damage and was much worse than he is depicted. It is true that Welles own history is and remains part of the film (he was raised by a Guardian called Mr Thatcher who he actually admired greatly). This gives his performance an edge that it would not have had it had been done otherwise. Here historical context and background are always relevant, as the effect of the film and its contrast with reality never should be forgotten, for it only improves when that context is known. For example Welles depicts Kane as someone who saw himself as for the working man. This can be confused with liberalism and the production clearly does want us to think that Kane as he begins his career in the press began as some kind of popinjay liberal who battles corruption when he owns shares in the trusts he is battling. However, the strength of the picture is in its political warning to labour to beware opportunists like Hurst:
Jeddahdiah [to Kane]. You talk about the people as though you own them - as though they belong to you. As long as I can remember you always talked about giving the people their rights, as if you could make them a present of liberty as a reward for services rendered remember the working man. You used to write an awful lot about the working man, now he has turned into something called Organised Labour! Youre not going to like that one little bit when you find out that your working man expects something that is his right and not as your gift. When your precious, underprivileged really get together Oh Boy! Thats going to add up to something thats bigger than your privileges and I dont know what youll do sail away to a desert island probably and lord it over the monkeys!
Id like to think that Mank actually said something similar to Hurst. If he didnt this is what he should have said. Added to this is the technical brilliance both of the filming and editing - the use of unusual camera angles, pools of light and strange shadows to show us the darkness at the heart of American progress (Kane turning over the management of his papers to Mr Thatcher during the great depression, his second wife drinking alone in her nightclub during a rain storm). The story lines many switch backs and diverging personal points of view (Joseph Cotton as Kanes friend Jeddahdiah sits in futuristic nursing home saying that Kane was a swine). The time slips of Kane at the breakfast table with his first wife Emily. Which begins with them not caring what people think, then years later Emily complains to Kane, what will people think? which he interrupts with: what I tell them to think!.
Unacknowledged Pilgrims | ||||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 26 | https://www.tumblr.com/fuckyeahbehindthescenes/tagged/special%2520effects | en | #special%20effects | fuckyeahbehindthescenes | https://64.media.tumblr.com/avatar_7c481002b120_128.pnj | https://64.media.tumblr.com/avatar_7c481002b120_128.pnj | [
"https://static.tumblr.com/f56608a753d990af855b1fb7531b88f4/5z7gnel/fEYn56xsn/tumblr_static_tumblr_static_925zfee7f58og0kswcgwso8wc_focused_v3.jpg",
"https://64.media.tumblr.com/avatar_7c481002b120_64.pnj 64w, https://64.media.tumblr.com/avatar_7c481002b120_96.pnj 96w, https://64.media.tumblr.com/avatar_7c481002b... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2011-09-17T02:44:13+00:00 | Posts tagged with #special%20effects | en | https://assets.tumblr.com/pop/manifest/favicon-0e3d244a.ico | Tumblr | https://www.tumblr.com/fuckyeahbehindthescenes/tagged/special%2520effects | Sometimes it's what we don't see that's important. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 24 | https://www.spectacletheater.com/citizen-unicron/ | en | CITIZEN UNICRON: THE “98% HUSTLE” OF ORSON WELLES – Spectacle Theater | [
"https://www.spectacletheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/spechead-hires.jpg",
"http://www.spectacletheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/citizen-unicron_banner.png",
" http://www.spectacletheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/man-who-saw-tomorrow_banner.png",
"http://www.spectacletheater.com/wp-content/... | [
"https://player.vimeo.com/video/807547253?h=89eac7816e&color=ffffff"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Dan Scanlon"
] | 2023-03-10T12:51:57-05:00 | en | https://www.spectacletheater.com/citizen-unicron/ | “I’ve wasted the greater part of my life looking for money and trying to get along… trying to make my work from this terribly expensive paintbox which is a movie. I’ve spent too much energy on things that have nothing to do with a movie. It’s about two percent moviemaking and ninety-eight percent hustling. It’s no way to spend a life.”
— Orson Welles, Filmmaker
“For a time I considered sparing your wretched little planet, Cybertron. But now… You shall witness… Its DISMEMBERMENT!”
— Unicron, Planet-eater
Orson Welles: “The Boy Wonder” turned enfant terrible of Hollywood. Twice named the greatest director of all time in separate polls conducted by the British Film Institute, and the filmmaker who cinephiles around the world believe to be, if not one the greatest, undoubtedly one of the most consequential of all time. Welles passed away in 1985 at the age of 70, a mere five days after having completed his final performance: The voice of Unicron, the gargantuan planet-eating menace from the 1986 animated Transformers movie. A regrettably undignified end to the career of a man who once revolutionized the film industry and our concept of cinematic auteurship with his landmark debut, CITIZEN KANE.
Despite KANE’s recognition as a groundbreaking achievement, Welles spent most of his career unable to fund projects of his own artistic control, instead finding himself embroiled in constant battles with studios and producers over the budget, tone, casting, and length of his films. By the 1970s, Welles had turned to self-financing his work, choosing to lease out his famously mercurial, larger-than-life personality to any number of talk shows, commercials, television shows, voice-overs, and cheapie productions willing to offer the money needed to keep his productions afloat. Perhaps jaded by his Sisyphean tenure in Hollywood, Welles eventually grew ambivalent about his legacy in the film industry, lamenting the amount of time spent having to finance his work as opposed to actually working, and going so far as to refer to his time as a filmmaker as “about 2% moviemaking and 98% hustling”.
Thankfully, that 2% has lived on through continued repertory screenings, restorations, and even the long-belated completion of Welles’ final feature, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, in 2018. But we here at Spectacle believe that it’s important to acknowledge not just the man’s completed films, but the painstaking efforts it took for him to get them to that point— The endless parade of B-movie villains, documentary narrators, cameo appearances, and thankless bit parts that collectively comprise his “hustle”. In that spirit, Spectacle Theater is excited to present this series featuring some of our favorite selections from that 98%.
THE MAN WHO SAW TOMORROW
dir. Robert Guenette, 1981
USA. 88 min.
In English.
SATURDAY, APRIL 1 – MIDNIGHT
FRIDAY, APRIL 14 – MIDNIGHT
THURSDAY, APRIL 27 – 10 PM
GET YOUR TICKETS!
In the early 1980s, before the era of Ancient Aliens and Beyond Belief, Orson Welles hosted this HBO “documentary” special about the life of Michel de Nostradame— aka Nostradamus— the 16th-century French apothecary and reputed seer whose “prophecies” “many” “experts” portend to have come true. Whether or not Nostradamus’ hundreds of vaguely provocative four-line poems were truly prophetic of future events (they weren’t) is still up for debate (it isn’t), but one thing he couldn’t predict is that this cable TV oddity would live a healthy second life on the 90s VHS market.
Much of the film’s lasting popularity has to do with Welles, who’s star power greatly outshines the material. Welles truly makes a meal out of his hosting duties, filling his oak-paneled library with a thick haze of cigar smoke as he struts around in an all-black ruffled suit. He alternates between skepticism and suggestion with aplomb, delivering lines like, “Was it coincidence… Or prophecy?”; ”Was he a QUACK… Or was he a true PROPHET?” with such unwarranted bravado that one wonders if he’s actually starting to enjoy himself. This is, after all, the same person who gave us F FOR FAKE, whose influence is felt in Robert Guenette’s dramatizations of Nostradamus’ predictions.
NECROMANCY
dir. Bert I. Gordon, 1972
USA. 83 min.
In English.
MONDAY, APRIL 3 – 10 PM
TUESDAY, APRIL 11 – 10 PM
FRIDAY, APRIL 21 – MIDNIGHT
SATURDAY, APRIL 29 – 10 PM
GET YOUR TICKETS!
From Spectacle favorite Bert I. Gordon (PICTURE MOMMY DEAD) comes this occult thriller about bringing life to the dead and death to the living. Pamela Franklin (THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE) and Michael Ontkean (TWIN PEAK’s Sheriff Truman) star as Lori and Frank, a married couple who relocate to a northern California town following a recent tragedy. Lori is unnerved when she begins to have bizarre visions upon their arrival, and her suspicions only deepen once they meet Frank’s new boss, the mysterious Mr. Cato (Orson Welles), who appears to maintain an outsized influence among the locals.
Filming took place in 1970, shortly after Welles’ return to Hollywood following the collapse of his decades-in-the-works DON QUIXOTE project, and according to Josh Karp’s The Making of The Other Side of the Wind, was one of the first projects that Welles openly acknowledged he had taken mainly for the money. Thankfully for him, there wasn’t much effort required on his part, what with most of his scenes limited to the same few interiors and Mr. Cato’s uncanny ability to communicate entire monologues via fireplace. Yet he still excels in the role, giving off an otherworldly vibe as he coldly delivers lines like, “You’ll forgive me if I sometimes lose myself in my enthusiasm”. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 71 | https://vdoc.pub/documents/musical-theater-synopses-eum4qmao2dm0 | en | Musical Theater Synopses [PDF] [eum4qmao2dm0] | [
"https://vdoc.pub/theme/static/images/header-logo3.png",
"https://vdoc.pub/theme/static/images/logo-socudoc-square.png",
"https://vdoc.pub/theme/static/images/logo-socudoc-square.png",
"https://vdoc.pub/img/detail/eum4qmao2dm0.jpg",
"https://vdoc.pub/img/crop/300x300/eum4qmao2dm0.jpg",
"https://vdoc.pub/i... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Musical Theater Synopses [PDF] [eum4qmao2dm0]. Musical Theater Synopses: An Index is a supplement to Jeanette Marie Drone's successful earlier book, Index to Opera, Op... | en | https://vdoc.pub/documents/musical-theater-synopses-eum4qmao2dm0 | Toc: cover......Page 1
Local Disk......Page 0
page_i......Page 2
page_ii......Page 3
page_iii......Page 4
page_1......Page 5
page_2......Page 7
page_3......Page 9
page_5......Page 10
page_7......Page 11
page_9......Page 12
page_10......Page 15
page_11......Page 18
page_12......Page 21
page_13......Page 24
page_14......Page 27
page_15......Page 30
page_16......Page 33
page_17......Page 36
page_18......Page 39
page_19......Page 43
page_21......Page 47
page_23......Page 48
page_24......Page 50
page_25......Page 53
page_26......Page 56
page_27......Page 59
page_28......Page 62
page_29......Page 65
page_30......Page 68
page_31......Page 71
page_32......Page 74
page_33......Page 77
page_34......Page 80
page_35......Page 83
page_36......Page 86
page_37......Page 89
page_38......Page 92
page_39......Page 95
page_40......Page 97
page_41......Page 99
page_42......Page 102
page_43......Page 105
page_44......Page 108
page_45......Page 111
page_46......Page 114
page_47......Page 117
page_48......Page 120
page_49......Page 123
page_50......Page 126
page_51......Page 129
page_52......Page 132
page_53......Page 135
page_54......Page 138
page_55......Page 140
page_56......Page 143
page_57......Page 146
page_58......Page 149
page_59......Page 152
page_60......Page 155
page_61......Page 158
page_62......Page 161
page_63......Page 164
page_64......Page 167
page_65......Page 170
page_66......Page 173
page_67......Page 176
page_68......Page 179
page_69......Page 182
page_70......Page 185
page_71......Page 188
page_72......Page 191
page_73......Page 194
page_74......Page 196
page_75......Page 199
page_76......Page 202
page_77......Page 205
page_78......Page 208
page_79......Page 211
page_80......Page 214
page_81......Page 217
page_82......Page 220
page_83......Page 223
page_84......Page 226
page_85......Page 229
page_86......Page 232
page_87......Page 235
page_88......Page 238
page_89......Page 241
page_90......Page 244
page_91......Page 247
page_92......Page 250
page_93......Page 253
page_94......Page 256
page_95......Page 259
page_96......Page 262
page_97......Page 263
page_98......Page 265
page_99......Page 268
page_100......Page 271
page_101......Page 274
page_102......Page 277
page_103......Page 280
page_104......Page 283
page_105......Page 286
page_106......Page 289
page_107......Page 292
page_108......Page 295
page_109......Page 298
page_110......Page 301
page_111......Page 303
page_112......Page 305
page_113......Page 308
page_114......Page 311
page_115......Page 314
page_116......Page 317
page_117......Page 320
page_118......Page 323
page_119......Page 326
page_120......Page 329
page_121......Page 332
page_122......Page 335
page_123......Page 337
page_124......Page 339
page_125......Page 342
page_126......Page 345
page_127......Page 348
page_128......Page 351
page_129......Page 354
page_130......Page 357
page_131......Page 360
page_132......Page 362
page_133......Page 365
page_134......Page 368
page_135......Page 371
page_136......Page 374
page_137......Page 377
page_138......Page 380
page_139......Page 381
page_140......Page 384
page_141......Page 387
page_142......Page 390
page_143......Page 393
page_144......Page 396
page_145......Page 398
page_146......Page 401
page_147......Page 404
page_148......Page 407
page_149......Page 410
page_150......Page 413
page_151......Page 416
page_152......Page 419
page_153......Page 422
page_154......Page 425
page_155......Page 428
page_156......Page 431
page_157......Page 434
page_158......Page 437
page_159......Page 440
page_160......Page 443
page_161......Page 446
page_162......Page 449
page_163......Page 452
page_164......Page 454
page_165......Page 457
page_166......Page 460
page_167......Page 463
page_168......Page 466
page_169......Page 469
page_170......Page 472
page_171......Page 475
page_172......Page 478
page_173......Page 481
page_174......Page 484
page_175......Page 487
page_176......Page 490
page_177......Page 493
page_178......Page 496
page_179......Page 499
page_180......Page 502
page_181......Page 505
page_182......Page 508
page_183......Page 510
page_184......Page 513
page_185......Page 516
page_186......Page 519
page_187......Page 522
page_188......Page 524
page_189......Page 526
page_190......Page 529
page_191......Page 532
page_192......Page 535
page_193......Page 538
page_194......Page 541
page_195......Page 543
page_196......Page 545
page_197......Page 548
page_198......Page 551
page_199......Page 554
page_200......Page 557
page_201......Page 560
page_202......Page 563
page_203......Page 566
page_204......Page 569
page_205......Page 572
page_206......Page 575
page_207......Page 578
page_208......Page 581
page_209......Page 584
page_210......Page 587
page_211......Page 589
page_212......Page 591
page_213......Page 592
page_214......Page 595
page_215......Page 598
page_216......Page 601
page_217......Page 604
page_218......Page 607
page_219......Page 609
page_220......Page 612
page_221......Page 615
page_222......Page 618
page_223......Page 621
page_224......Page 624
page_225......Page 627
page_226......Page 630
page_227......Page 633
page_228......Page 636
page_229......Page 639
page_230......Page 642
page_231......Page 645
page_232......Page 648
page_233......Page 651
page_234......Page 654
page_235......Page 657
page_236......Page 660
page_237......Page 663
page_238......Page 666
page_239......Page 669
page_240......Page 672
page_241......Page 675
page_242......Page 678
page_243......Page 681
page_244......Page 684
page_245......Page 687
page_246......Page 690
page_247......Page 692
page_248......Page 695
page_249......Page 698
page_250......Page 701
page_251......Page 704
page_252......Page 707
page_253......Page 710
page_254......Page 713
page_255......Page 716
page_256......Page 719
page_257......Page 722
page_258......Page 725
page_259......Page 728
page_260......Page 729
page_261......Page 732
page_262......Page 735
page_263......Page 737
page_264......Page 740
page_265......Page 743
page_266......Page 746
page_267......Page 749
page_268......Page 752
page_269......Page 754
page_270......Page 756
page_271......Page 759
page_272......Page 762
page_273......Page 765
page_274......Page 768
page_275......Page 771
page_276......Page 773
page_277......Page 774
page_278......Page 777
page_279......Page 778
page_280......Page 780
page_281......Page 783
page_283......Page 785
page_285......Page 786
page_286......Page 790
page_287......Page 794
page_288......Page 798
page_289......Page 802
page_290......Page 806
page_291......Page 809
page_292......Page 812
page_293......Page 815
page_294......Page 818
page_295......Page 821
page_296......Page 824
page_297......Page 827
page_298......Page 830
page_299......Page 833
page_300......Page 836
page_301......Page 839
page_302......Page 842
page_303......Page 845
page_304......Page 848
page_305......Page 851
page_306......Page 854
page_307......Page 857
page_308......Page 860
page_309......Page 863
page_310......Page 866
page_311......Page 869
page_312......Page 872
page_313......Page 875
page_314......Page 878
page_315......Page 881
page_316......Page 884
page_317......Page 887
page_318......Page 890
page_319......Page 893
page_320......Page 896
page_321......Page 899
page_322......Page 902
page_323......Page 905
page_324......Page 908
page_325......Page 911
page_326......Page 914
page_327......Page 917
page_328......Page 920
page_329......Page 923
page_330......Page 926
page_331......Page 929
page_332......Page 932
page_333......Page 935
page_334......Page 938
page_335......Page 941
page_336......Page 944
page_337......Page 947
page_338......Page 950
page_339......Page 953
page_340......Page 956
page_341......Page 959
page_342......Page 962
page_343......Page 965
page_344......Page 968
page_345......Page 971
page_346......Page 974
page_347......Page 977
page_348......Page 980
page_349......Page 983
page_350......Page 986
page_351......Page 989
page_352......Page 992
page_353......Page 995
page_354......Page 998
page_355......Page 1001
page_356......Page 1004
page_357......Page 1007
page_358......Page 1010
page_359......Page 1013
page_360......Page 1016
page_361......Page 1019
page_362......Page 1022
page_363......Page 1025
page_364......Page 1028
page_365......Page 1031
page_366......Page 1034
page_367......Page 1037
page_368......Page 1040
page_369......Page 1043
page_370......Page 1046
page_371......Page 1049
page_372......Page 1052
page_373......Page 1055
page_374......Page 1058
page_375......Page 1061
page_376......Page 1064
page_377......Page 1067
page_378......Page 1070
page_379......Page 1073
page_380......Page 1076
page_381......Page 1079
page_382......Page 1082
page_383......Page 1085
page_384......Page 1088
page_385......Page 1091
page_386......Page 1094
page_387......Page 1097
page_388......Page 1100
page_389......Page 1103
page_390......Page 1106
page_391......Page 1109
page_392......Page 1112
page_393......Page 1115
page_394......Page 1118
page_395......Page 1121
page_396......Page 1124
page_397......Page 1127
page_398......Page 1130
page_399......Page 1133
page_400......Page 1136
page_401......Page 1139
page_402......Page 1142
page_403......Page 1145
page_404......Page 1148
page_405......Page 1151
page_406......Page 1154
page_407......Page 1157
page_408......Page 1160
page_409......Page 1163
page_410......Page 1166
page_411......Page 1169
page_412......Page 1172
page_413......Page 1175
page_414......Page 1178
page_415......Page 1181
page_416......Page 1184
page_417......Page 1187
page_418......Page 1190
page_419......Page 1193
page_420......Page 1196
page_421......Page 1199
page_422......Page 1202
page_423......Page 1205
page_424......Page 1208
page_425......Page 1211
page_426......Page 1214
page_427......Page 1217
page_428......Page 1220
page_429......Page 1223
page_430......Page 1226
page_431......Page 1229
page_432......Page 1232
page_433......Page 1235
page_434......Page 1238
page_435......Page 1241
page_436......Page 1244
page_437......Page 1247
page_438......Page 1250
page_439......Page 1253
page_441......Page 1255
page_441-0......Page 1256 | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 68 | http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/editing-cutting-essay/ | en | The Magnificent Ambersons | http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/R7b-31g-1024x771.jpg | http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/R7b-31g-1024x771.jpg | [
"http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Logo3.png",
"http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/R7b-31g-1024x771.jpg",
"http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/423446_10150615759017199_366595190_n.jpg",
"http://www.themagnificentamber... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2018-05-18T03:13:05+00:00 | Magnificent Ambersons. Complete Magnifcent Ambersons. Restoration. Orson Welles | en | The Magnificent Ambersons | http://www.themagnificentambersons.com/editing-cutting-essay/ | “THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONs was probably among the five most important films ever made in America. That this film was so mutilated that you can barely get a sense of what it was is, I think, the greatest artistic tragedy in the movies.” Peter Bogdanovich
EDITING THE MANGNIFICENT AMBERSONS
JOSEPH EGAN
PART ONE
PHASE ONE
When THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS completed principal photography on January 22, 1942, and Welles had finished the reshoots and pick-up that he deemed necessary by the 31st, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSON’s rough cut was already well underway. Robert Wise, the film’s editor—and editor of CITIZEN KANE—was editing the film under Welles supervision immediately after scenes were shot. To accomplish this he and assistant editor Mark Robson were working as much as 120 hours a week.
Robert Wise, having just been nominated for an Oscar for CITIZEN KANE, had recently edited such hits as MY FAVORITE WIFE, The Laughton HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, and THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER. After nine years in the business his career was finally taking off and he was much in demand. Editing AMBERSONS he and ROBSON believed they were working on another KANE. In addition, pressure was being applied by RKO President George Schaefer to speed up post production as he wanted the film to open on April 3 at Radio City Music Hall—just eight weeks after shooting had been completed.
When George Schaefer joined RKO, the studio had just come out of receivership. Taking the job Schaeffer assured the RKO Board that he would not only produce quality films at reasonable budgets but would also transform RKO from an ‘also ran’ studio into a top rank major while increasing profits. To this end Schaeffer had brought Welles to RKO. Unfortunately things hadn’t gone as planned. KANE, despite its immense critical success had been a headache for the studio. Besides the Hearst affair, Welles had promised to make his pictures for no more than $600,000 but, instead, KANE came in for $840,000 and it now appeared the film would barely break even, much less make a profit. Other Schaefer films had also failed at the box office and with AMBERSON costing over a million dollars—making it one of the most expensive films ever made at RKO—its success or failure would determine whether Schaefer kept his job. Therefore, Schaefer desperately needed AMBERSONS to be a money maker and he needed the money coming in fast and, thus, the reason for the April 3rd opening.
Because of the war, Welles had been enlisted by the State Department to make a film in Brazil to improve U.S. relations with South America. Consequently, Welles was required to leave for Washington to meet with the State Department officials on February 2 and then fly on to Rio on the 7th. The film he would make there, IT’S ALL TRUE, has a book devoted to this troubled production. Therefore, I will only mention that film when it pertains to AMBERSONS.
In order to complete the final stages of the film’s rough cut editor Robert Wise flew down to Miami to meet with Welles before Welles left for Rio. Wise brought the film’s work print and reels of scenes that needed work as they hadn’t as yet been properly cut together. The two men spent three days screening the material with both agreeing on what needed to be done to complete the film’s rough cut. On the evening of the third day, literally hours before boarding a plane for Rio, Orson Welles recorded the film’s narration.
Before leaving, Welles gave Wise full authority to complete the rough cut while Welles was in Brazil preparing and filming a crucial segment of IT’S ALL TRUE during the Rio Carnival. This put Robert Wise in charge of the film’s post production and, during the rest of this stage of editing, Wise was in daily contact with Welles, either by long distance telephone or telegram—with phone and telegram costs totaling $1000 a week. As soon as Wise completed editing a scene, he sent answer print (sound and film synched together) to Welles in Rio and Welles would send Wise instructions with Wise making the required adjustments.
Approximately four weeks later—six weeks after AMBERSON had finished shooting—Robert Wise shipped Welles a 131 minute rough-cut of the film along with alternate takes, sound elements plus a spare music track for editing purposes in order to fine tune the film. This 131 minutes was the first full assemblage of the film with opticals, music and sound effects. For all intensive purposes this was Orson Welles’ film. According to the plan Wise was to immediately follow the rough cut to Rio and it would be in Rio that AMBERSONS would be completed. Wise also sent a letter with suggestions for cuts and other work he thought needed to be done on the film in order to prepare Welles for the work ahead. Wise felt that certain scenes required cutting and the film’s pace picked up. It would be in Rio that the two men would hone the film into shape for—although Welles was against it—a preview version edited down to its final release length. As it was planned, shortly after the preview, the film would be approved by RKO and then put into release in April. At least that was the plan.
At this point in his career Orson Welles’ editing skills were not what they would eventually become and therefore he was very much dependent on Wise to get the film into shape just as Wise had helped him to do with CITIZEN KANE. Regarding his working methods with Welles, Wise commented “Each day we would review the rushes together; Orson would then describe what he wanted to accomplish with a particular segment, and I would take notes and go back into the editing room to cut the scene. I worked with my assistant, Mark Robson, to assemble the footage, and then Orson would review what we had done. While he had a good idea of what he wanted from Mark and me, Orson never hung around the cutting room to watch us work or direct the editing.” Since nearly 55 percent of AMBERSONS was shot in a single or two-take scenes and the rest in multi angle set-ups, the fine tuning wouldn’t be all that difficult. At most it would require shortening some of one-take scenes with trimming at the beginning or end and with the multi-angle scenes cutting and or replacing shots with more effective takes as the two men discovered the film’s final “rhythm;” or at what length it played best. In fact, in the truncated release version all the multi-angle scenes that weren’t eliminated remain exactly as they are in the Rough Cut except for an occasional word or line elimination. Therefore, meeting the April 3d opening date that RKO President George Schaefer requested would well be within their grasp. Work in Rio done, Wise would return with the print to Hollywood, conform the negative and have a film ready for preview and subsequent release a short time later.
Unfortunately for Welles, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and film history, Robert Wise did not fly to Rio and RKO President George Schaefer deemed that 131 minute work print worthy for preview.
The reason? After taking a look at the film with several RKO executives Schaefer was concerned that the film was too downbeat and wanted the immediate response of a preview audience to see if he was correct. Hopefully he was not. If he was, he and the film were in trouble, and with a $1,000,000 at stake he needed to know this immediately. So, the first preview was scheduled for a few days later in Pomona, California.
Both the studio screening as well as the previews came as a complete surprise to Wise whose trip to Rio had been cancelled due—it was claimed—to wartime travel restrictions. The screening and the preview were a surprise because Welles’ contract regarding AMBERSONS—his second contract with RKO—did not allow anyone at RKO to see the footage in any form until after the first preview unless it was approved by Welles. Although Wise was technically in charge, as Schaefer was his boss, there was little he could do to prevent this.
Some Background. In the July 1939 Welles (through Mercury Productions) signed a contract with RKO that gave Orson Welles complete artistic control of two films to be delivered by a certain date at a certain budget. Because KANE had taken so long to make, by 1941 Welles had exceeded the time limit specified by the contract. To compensate, Welles promised RKO a third film for free. The second film he was making as part of that original contract was MY FRIEND BENITO—later remade as THE BRAVE BULL in the 1950s—for which he wasn’t receiving a fee. That original contract had stipulated that (though Mercury Productions) Welles was to write, direct, produce and—under an appendix to the original contract—act in each of the original two films. Regarding BENITO, although he had written it, produced and “co-directed”—it was really being directed under Welles supervision by Norman Foster in Mexico. He wasn’t acting in it. As Welles had pretty much run through his KANE money, and doing BENITO for free, Orson Welles would not be paid until he made the third film. So, in the flush of KANE’S immense critical success, during July 1941 Orson Welles agreed to a second contract with RKO for two additional films. THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS would be the first—in which Welles would not act but only narrate—and the second, JOURNEY INTO FEAR, a thriller based on a best-selling novel, forced on Welles by Schaefer so Welles would make a more commercial film. Eventually BENITO would be incorporated into IT’S ALL TRUE and that film would become the second film under the first ‘final cut’ contract. Welles would produce JOURNEY but not write or direct, merely play a pivotal supporting role which he agreed to do without payment. When these two films were completed, Welles could finally fulfill the second “non-final cut contract.” This is one of the reasons why he rushed JOURNEY into production on January 6th with Norman foster directing. As planned, when Welles returned from Rio, the two films would be completed and as soon as IT’S ALL TRUE was finished Welles could make the third film under the first, ‘final cut,’ contract and the money would start coming in again.
After all the trouble that Welles had given RKO—publically announcing that he would sue the company if they didn’t release CITIZEN KANE, and essentially bullying RKO into doing it, thus openly defying William Randolph Hearst—this second contract was very much like the first except for two key provisions that would eliminate any legal problems if Welles should attempt to do that again after the two films were completed. Once the script was approved by RKO, although they now had cast approval, Welles still had total control over the film but only until the first preview after which RKO could take over the film—a situation Welles believed would never happen because of assurances from George Schaeffer that it was only in the contract to placate the RKO Board. In short, Welles still had complete artistic control of his films during production and post production but no longer had final cut. An indication of his uneasy feelings about this second contract was that Welles did not sign it for six months and only did so, reluctantly, before leaving for South America.
Since RKO—exactly as in the first contract—could not view the footage unless Welles approved, this was the reason why editor Robert Wise immediately cabled Welles that Schaeffer and several RKO executives had looked at the rough cut with Schaeffer suddenly ordering the rough cut previewed and not, as originally planned, the final edited version of film to be completed in Rio. In addition for the preview Schaefer—in a violation of the contract—ordered three scenes removed. During its production Schaefer had had high hopes for the film but having screened AMBERSONS, its length, pace, and overall downbeat tone had given him pause and the reason why he ordered the removal of several scenes; the first and second porch scene, and the factory visit. (This may have been at Wise’s suggestion which he had the authority to permit. He had written Welles when sending the print to Rio that he felt these scenes should be dropped for pacing purposes.) Also removed presumably ordered by Welles was Lucy and Eugene’s walk in the garden and George’s accident. (These scenes, including the factory visit, would later be restored in the release version.)
Fortunately, it was about this time that the famous March 12, cutting continuity for the 131 rough cut was prepared and remains the only accurate record of the complete rough cut version of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS in existence.
A week or so before Welles received the 131 minute rough cut, Welles contacted Wise and told him to remove 13 minutes of footage—later referred to as the “Big Cut.” Wise let Welles know that he didn’t agree with this cut but did as he was told. The 13 minute cut would begin after George read Eugene’s letter and told his mother “him or me” and would go directly to Isabel’s death. (These cuts included Isabel’s letter to George, George walk with Lacy, Lucy fainting, the pool hall scene, the second porch scene, Jack’s return from Europe, and finally Isabel’s return home.) To bridge the cut Welles sent wise a scene where, after the first letter George walks into his mother’s room and finds her unconscious on the floor which directly leads to Isabel’s death. Assistant director Freddie Fleck directed this bridging material. As this would prove a devastating cut in the very heart of the film, one can only conclude that Welles, having second thoughts about a possible negative audience response to George, wanted to get him as quickly as possible to a situation—grieving over the loss of his mother—where he would regain audience sympathy. As this bridge scene was shot on the 10th it was too late to make these changes in the cutting continuity or the print sent to Welles but, nonetheless, Wise included the bridge scene with all the material he shipped to Welles.
With the porch scenes ordered cut by Schaefer and Lucy’s and Eugene’s garden scene removed as well as George’s accident cut—along with Welles 13 minute cut—the version of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS taken by Robert Wise and assistant editor Mark Robson to the Pomona preview now ran approximately 110 minutes.
THE PREVIEWS
After completing a film the audience response at a preview can tell filmmakers where parts played too slow, where laughs don’t work and things of that sort. A preview is a tool. It is not, and should never be the ultimate arbitrator of the potential success or failure of a movie. Many films that had wonderful previews eventually died at the box office.
Irving Thalberg—a great believer in audience identification—used previews to test where audience identification was successful and where it wasn’t. When it wasn’t he took the film back into production and re-filmed scenes to fix the problem. For THE BIG HOUSE the lead character makes a play for a fellow inmate’s wife and this immediately turned off the audience. So, Thalberg had a scene re-shot changing the girl from his friend’s wife to his sister and with that problem out of the way the film proved a massive success with the screenplay eventually winning an Oscar. With RED-HEADED WOMAN preview audiences were confused about how to relate to the Jean Harlow character. So, Thalberg had a scene shot to play at the opening of the film where Harlow tries on a dress and asks the sales girl if she can see through it. When the girl says yes, Harlow smiles and announces she’ll take it. In other words Harlow was a woman who was completely unabashed about her sexuality and how she intended to use it. Thus, the audience not only immediately liked the character but identified with the woman because of her honesty and total lack of hypocrisy.
For a different or an unusual film, a preview audience can be absolutely useless as preview audiences often aren’t prepared to see the film the filmmakers created but become disappointed not seeing the film they had expected. Consequently a preview audience response needs to be taken with a degree of skepticism. For example Billy Wilder previewed SOME LIKE IT HOT one night and not a single member of the audience laughed. They were looking at a very different kind of comedy and they simply didn’t get it. He previewed the very same cut of the film to another audience and not only did they get it but roared with laughter so that cut of the film was released to great acclaim.
On the other hand Darryl Zanuck previewed THE GRAPES OF WRATH and the preview was an absolute disaster. A third of the audience walked out and there were only twenty or thirty preview cards all repeating the same thing: dreary, dull, no stars, leading lady has pimples. The audience hated the movie. So, Zanuck took the movie back to the studio and ran the film with his editor sitting beside him. He watched it for an hour without saying a word. Finally he turned around and announced to the ten or so people in the screening room. “If I don’t know more about making a movie than any Friday night audience I shouldn’t be running a studio. This is a great movie. But I learned one thing tonight; an audience has to be pre-conditioned to the kind of picture it’s going to look at.” He turned to the Fox executive who had chosen the theater and ‘gave it to him.’ “How could you ever put us in a theater with a Bob Hope comedy on first?” Zanuck then had an advertising campaign designed to tell the public they were going to see a work of art. Thomas Hart Benton even did the illustrations. Consequently, THE GRAPES OF WRATH went out exactly as that preview audience had seen it, made a ton of money and was immediately lauded as one of one of the greatest American movies ever made.
On a night in 1951, THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE had its first preview at the Pinewood Theater in Los Angeles. The theater was playing HARVEY a Jimmy Stewart comedy. In its original cut, John Huston considered RED BADGE the best film he ever made. I spoke to a cast member who attended that preview. He thought the film in its original form one of the most powerful movies he had ever seen. He called it both shattering and an overpowering masterpiece. Having himself been in World War II, the actor considered the THE RED BADGE OF COURAGE the most accurate depiction of the experience of war ever put on the screen. Nevertheless, during that preview there were 32 walkouts in an audience of 1600. The audience that did remain laughed a few times in the wrong places but for the most part their response was, as the actor told me, restlessness; anxious for the film to end so that they could finally see HARVEY. The preview card responses ranged from “Worst film I ever saw” and “I fell asleep” to “those who can take grim reality, it is in the class of ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT.” Deemed a disaster by the studio the film, caught up in studio politics and thinking that it would increase the film’s chances for success, the studio head cut the film by nearly 25 minutes and added a narration. When it was all over, the film’s producer mused about the revamp: “So now I do not have a great picture and it will still be a flop.” It was.
POMONA
On the evening of March 17, 1942. RKO President, George Schaefer, editor Robert Wise and a number of RKO and Mercury staff including the film’s star Joseph Cotton drove out to Pomona to hold the first preview of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS—now running 110 minutes. The theater they chose was the 1720 seat Fox Pomona which that night was playing, THE FLEET’S IN a light hearted Paramount musical staring Dorothy Lamour, William Holden, Betty Hutton Eddie Bracken and Jimmy Dorsey; in short, Hollywood escapism at its best. The theater was chosen because it could play film and sound on separate reels. Today, if a Welles fan found—presumably in an assisted living facility—someone who had attended that Pomona preview, I dread to think what they would do to them as that audience pretty much doomed THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS as Orson Welles had made it. But, more on that later—much, much more.
The two people at that preview who had the most to gain and the most to lose that night were Franklin Schaefer, RKO President and editor Robert Wise who, under Welles’ supervision had edited the film everyone was about to see. For George Schaefer his job was on the line and for Robert Wise his career was at stake.
It should also be understood that a preview becomes a film maker’s first impression of how a film that they have worked on for months or perhaps even years, will play to the public. It serves to change their perspective so they can now see the film objectively and no longer miss the forest for the trees. On the other hand a preview audience couldn’t give a damn about any of that. What they think about is the two hours they have to spend watching a movie and whether it’s going to be a waste of their time.
In selecting that night to preview the film in Pomona George Schaefer neglected to take certain factors into consideration. First, that it just happened to be St. Patrick’s Day. Second the theater was located near several local colleges and that the type of film playing at the theater—staring then sex-pot Dorothy Lamour—would attract an inordinately large number of male students who after a day of celebrating would walk into that theater still imbibed with the bubbly expecting Miss Lamour and company to top off a day’s festivities. Thus, it wouldn’t be too far off the mark to predict that there would be a potentially somewhat ruckus crew seated in that theater.
But, it didn’t start off bad. When the title appeared with Orson Welles name there was applause accompanied by murmurs of anticipation. When Welles narration began even more applause. Then something happened. Towards the end of the first reel, during the ball sequence the walk-outs began and soon “droves” of people were leaving the theater. Having come for a light hearted comedy as soon as they realized that this was going to be something serious, many decided to leave in masse. As the movie continued playing, off and on, there were additional walk outs but nothing like that first wave. For those who stayed, after about 15 or 20 minutes into the picture, a particular segment of that audience – having come to see and enjoy a Paramount comedy – decided that they, at least in their inebriated state, were now watching another comedy. What was worse, they didn’t laugh at the intended humor in the film but laughed at about everything else. The first to fall victim to this comic interpretation of the film were Aunt Fanny and Mrs. Johnson. Mrs. Johnson and the Olive scene pretty much did the trick for her and Aunt Fanny’s reaction to George’s teasing her after the ball signed her death warrant. After that every-time either woman appeared on the screen members of the audience either laughed at them outright or made comments to the screen that had others in the theater laughing. When Mrs. Johnson appeared at Wilber’s coffin they even found that funny. As for Aunt Fanny’s extreme grief over the loss of her brother, well, it brought forth peals of laughter.
The wrath of this preview audience finally turned on George when, after seeing the excavations next to the house he went into histrionics. As far as this audience was concerned it could have been Charlie Chaplin running around that yard as the laughs came hot and heavy. From that point on George became an object of derision so much so that, when he appeared reading Eugene’ letter, the audience moaned as if to say, “Oh, not him again” followed by some more laughs. As for Aunt Fanny confronting George on the stairs after he had insulted Eugene, it might well have been Abbott and Costello doing a comedy routine.
There were scenes during which the jokesters did shut up but they were few and far in-between and what the audience did express for the most part was boredom and impatience at a film that seemed to go on and on without anything happening. These scenes included most of the ball, the barn scene, part of the snow scene, George taking his father’s photograph out; although they did like George slamming the door in Eugene’s face. As for Isabel’s death they found the disoriented, diminished Major Amberson hobbling on his cane another object of derision and him sitting in front of the fire musing about his approaching death an absolute hoot. But this group saved their big laughs for Aunt Fanny and the boiler scene. Watching a hysterical woman an inch way from a complete mental breakdown, they thought it hilarious and between laughs came jokes shouted at her expense that got others laughing. Finally, if what proceeded it wasn’t horrible enough, before the narrated end credits appeared, and Orson Welles announced that the film was over, the audience cheered and applauded that the film was finally over. An indication of exactly how bad that audience was, is that several patrons, on their preview cards, actually apologized to the filmmakers for their fellow patron’s behavior.
In short, the Pomona preview was a nightmare, so much so that by the end, the RKO contingent in that theater sat in their seats in absolute disbelief. Earlier, before walking into the theater they had believed they had a great and emotionally moving masterpiece—perhaps even greater than KANE—but with a few problems that could be ironed out with some judicious cutting and the use of alternate takes to heighten or lessen the overall tone and impact of certain scenes. In no way where they prepared for that audience. In fact, no one ever could be prepared for a preview audience like that. It was a completely shell-shocked George Schaefer, whose job was on the line with this picture, who wrote Welles, “Never in all my experience in the industry have I taken so much punishment or suffered as I did at the Pomona preview. In my 28 years in the business, I have never been present in a theater where the audience acted in such a manner. They laughed at the wrong places, talked at the picture, kidded it, and did everything that you can possibly imagine. It was just like getting one sock in the jaw after another.” Years later editor (and now academy award winning director) Robert Wise still carried the scars. “I never in all my years heard so many laughs in all the wrong places. It was just a disaster. A lot of the audience walked out. They laughed at a lot of it at inappropriate times. They were laughing at Aggie Moorhead’s character and it was just terrible!” Staggering out of that theater the people from RKO didn’t think they had had a bad film, they believed they had—in Welles’s words—an awful picture. For some, it would be the most disheartening experience of their lives.
If that wasn’t bad enough, then there were the preview cards which only solidified things. The Pomona preview produced 130 preview cards; 72 negative preview cards and 58 positive. What is of interest is that in their negative responses audience members absolutely hated the movie while many of the positive responses declared it one of the, if not, the greatest film ever made.
[“It stinks.” – ” The worst picture I ever saw.” – “Rubbish.” – “Only Orson Welles could think up a thing like that.” – ” Who cares about that junk!” – “It got duller by the minute.” – “Just sat waiting for something to happen.” – “It should be shelved as it is a crime to take people’s hard earned money for such artistic trash. Mr. Welles had better go back to radio.” – “I overheard one lady say, ‘I don’t like to look at a picture I can’t see.’ ” – “The truth is that I couldn’t understand it.” – “I don’t see why in times of trouble, bloodshed and hate, movie producers have to add to it by making dreary pictures… I wish you producers could see how much more the audience enjoyed THE FLEET’S IN. ” – “Boys you’re slipping. I was robbed.”
“I think it was the best picture I have ever seen.” – “The picture is magnificent. The direction, acting, photography, and special effects are the best the cinema has yet offered.” – “The picture was a masterpiece with perfect photography, settings and acting.” – “A hell of a good picture.” – “Very good. Marvelous acting. Photography made the picture even more dramatic.” – “Very good. All of it.” – ” Masterful direction. “]
In defense of that Pomona crew, certain factors should be taken into consideration besides St, Patty’s day. Three months earlier America entered the war and many of the young men jeering at the screen would, in a few months, be in uniform and some would never return home. So for them, with their own futures in doubt, the trials-and-tribulations of George Minafer Amberson and the decline of the Amberson family simply paled in comparison.
PASADENA
A second preview was scheduled two days later on the 19th at the 912 seat United Artists Theater in Pasadena. Robert wise spent these two days doing his best to improve Welles’ film—or at least trying to make an audience more receptive to it. Since Welles had given him complete authority, Wise did what he now thought best. He had had issues with the 131 minute cut that he considered serious problems and had informed Welles about this. If Wise had gone to Rio these issues would have been hammered out between the two men as similar issues had been done with CITIZEN KANE. Later, as a two time Oscar winning director, Wise was known in the industry as a man who knew “what an audience would accept.” It was his strength as a director and before that as an editor. Wise had cut the breakfast scene in KANE the way he preferred, turning it into a fast paced movie-within-a movie and one of the highlights of the film. Welles on the other hand wasn’t interested in audience receptivity. He was interested in affect; he wanted to shock the audience. He wanted to surprise them. But, most of all, he wanted to play with audience expectations. This is why Welles and Wise made such a good team as each complimented the other. Now, circumstance forced Robert Wise to do it himself without Orson Welles. Wise’s specific problem with the film was length and pacing. Wise felt the film dragged and certain scenes—as good as they were—slowed up the film, diluting the effectiveness of later, more important scenes. So Wise went ahead and re-instated Welles “big cut,” which he thought, and wrote Welles, had been a mistake and believed had drastically hurt the film in Pomona.
He re-instated the Indian legend scene as well as George’s accident but cut the “Riffraff” line. He also took out the two porch scenes which meant that the public never had the opportunity to see either of these scenes. He also cut the factory scene, the bathroom scene with Uncle Jack to remove George’s histrionics and he also tightened the final boarding house scene in order to pick up the pace as he felt the film dragged at the end; further losing audience interest. In addition he did some re-arranging. Jack’s farewell at the train station scene was followed by Fanny at the boiler. The Bronson scene was now followed by George’s walk with that followed by Lucy and Eugene’s in the garden and Lucy’s Indian Legend. In addition Eugene reading about George’s accident was cut as well as his trip to the hospital. Instead, after the announcement in the paper’s of George’s accident, Eugene leaving the hospital tells his driver to take him to the boarding house. When Wise was done, it was still Welles’ version of the film, albeit shorter and more focused but, now running 117 minutes, the film’s pace had quickened and the important elements were all where they should be. This cut was probably as close as THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS ever came to the preview cut that Wise and Welles would have prepared had they been allowed to work together in Rio.
While Wise was laboring over the film, George Schaefer asked and was informed by a member of the RKO legal staff that now that the first preview had been held, RKO could take over THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS and do what it chose to do with it. In other words Schaefer and not Welles now had control of the film.
Pasadena is an upscale neighborhood on the border of Los Angeles. Consequently, playing AMBERSONS there, the film would be seen by an older and more sophisticated audience. Fortunately this time a theater was chosen not playing a lighted hearted musical but a serious aerial drama; CAPTAINS OF THE CLOUDS staring James Cagney.
At Pasadena the film played infinity better. Even though there were still walkouts, the audience watched the film respectfully and there were far fewer laughs, although George’s excavation histrionics’ did not go over very well. Wise did notice that the pacing was still a problem as the audience grew restless in spots but he felt that these were problems he could fix.
Nevertheless, despite the walk-outs it was an improved preview and the preview cards showed as much. A sample of the positives: “Wonderful. Much Better than CITIZEN KANE. Orson Welles is a genius.” -“Definitely 10 times better than CITIZEN KANE.” – “This is by far one of the finest pictures I have ever seen.” -“Magnificent direction. Outstanding performances. Photography excellent, snow scenes like Currier & Ives.” – “Perfect.” – ” It portrayed realistically and faithfully a marvelous study in adolescent psychology, maternal complex and social maladjustment. The picture is a triumph for Mr. Welles.” – “Superb.” – “No word at my command can express the emotion that this story has aroused in me.”
In re-cutting the film, Wise had done his job well. Of the 85 cards, 0nly 18 were were negative which meant 80 percent were positive. The negatives still hated it but as is evident with the responses above, many of the positives again called it one of the greatest films they’d ever seen. This preview proved that there was an enthusiastic audience out there that would appreciated the films virtues; albeit a smaller one than George Schaefer had hoped for but, with a little more fine-tuning and proper marketing (Think Zanuck And THE GRAPES OF WRATH) RKO would have a chance of getting most of its money back.
Unfortunately George Schaefer was no Darryl Zanuck. His position at the studio was tenuous at best and, so, the man was running scared. As for Welles, because the film was as dark as it was, the reason he did not want a preview was because he knew how executives would overreact to a preview audience’s response to such a dark film. “Think if KANE been previewed?” became his mantra for years to come when Welles referred to the AMBERSONS’ previews. Welles believed, without a doubt in his mind, that the material was so good that, with laudatory reviews, like KANE the very quality of the film would overcome its somber tone to find an audience that would appreciate the film. But, Welles was in Rio and George Schaefer was in Hollywood and that made all the difference.
PHASE TWO
The day after the Pasadena preview George Schaefer wrote Orson Welles a long letter expressing his feelings about AMBERSONS. That letter was a harbinger of what the future of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS would be. It was the letter of a tired, beaten man. In it Schaefer was gentle but he was blunt. He concentrated on the Pomona audience and pretty much glossed over the positive response at Pasadena. Schaefer explained that he was not interested in another CITIZEN KANE—a critical success but a box office disappointment. In his letter, which Welles found devastating, Schaefer carefully explained that if THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was ever to be the financial success that everyone needed it to be—after all a million dollars was at stake—it must appeal to a younger audience, the very audience that had vilified it in Pomona. With the European and Asian market gone due to the war, it was this younger audience that could make the difference between profit and loss for the film and, so, even though this was said between the lines, AMBERSONS would be turned into a film that this audience would want to see. In other words, the film would require drastic cutting and reshaping which Welles’ contract required him to do to RKO’s satisfaction. For now Schaefer would leave this up to Welles and his Mercury staff. So, in a sense Welles still had control of the film but whatever he did would require George Schaefer’s approval and Welles would have to transform AMBERSONS into the film Schaefer wanted and not necessarily the one Welles wanted.
To this affect, on March 23—just four days after Pasadena—Jack Moss, Welles’ and Mercury’s business manager, wired Welles: “Schaefer and his associates advocate many drastic cuts, mainly for purposes of shortening length. Bob Wise, Joe (Cotten) and myself have conferred analyzing audience reactions and exercising our best judgment.” At this point Robert Wise was still in charge of post-production but regarding the film’s revamping, Jack Moss had become the film’s defacto producer.
What the three men came up with was a structure that Welles rejected out of hand because he simply couldn’t see any sense to the cuts they were proposing and he begged to have Wise immediately sent to Rio so the two could work on the picture. When Welles realized that this wasn’t going to happen, on March 27th he wired his suggestions for cuts.
Welles cuts included the entire first-floor scene after the ball, cutting Lucy and Eugene returning home in the auto, shortening the scene upstairs before everyone went to bed, shortening the beginning of the snow scene, and taking out the Iris at the end. He then suggested moving Lucy and George’s buggy ride prior Wilber’s funeral. The shots of Wilber’s tombstone and George’s diploma would be replaced by Bronson’s epitaph: “Wilber Minafer—Quiet man—Town will hardly know he’s gone.” George’s finding the excavations next to the house would be cut. The first porch scene would remain except for George’s fantasy involving Lucy. George unwrapping his father photo and placing it on the table would also be cut. Welles wanted the first letter scene entirely reshot so that now Eugene is shown writing it, with Isabel reading it at the end. The text would also be shortened. Welles wanted the big cut re-instated along with the bridge scene of George finding his mother unconscious. In addition, Welles wanted the part of the scene where Fanny tells George that Eugene is downstairs cut as well as Fanny speaking to Eugene and just leave Eugene alone waiting downstairs. All the cemetery scenes would be cut with most of the rest of the scenes remaining but shuffled. Lucy’s garden scene would now occur after Jack’s farewell, then Fanny at the boiler, Bronson’s office and George’s walk ending with him kneeling at his mother’s bed with Welles narration replacing George’s praying. The accident would be cut and then the rest of the film played as is. These changes would bring THE MANGNIFIENT AMBERSONS’ running time down to approximately 108 minutes.
Welles suggestions would succeed in shortening the film but did not change its overall dark tone and, with the big cut, a massive hole would be left in the film’ narrative. There can be no doubt that Wise was not happy about this. In addition, Schaefer and other RKO executives were applying pressure on Wise and Moss not only to cut the movie but also lighten its tone which RKO thought was excessively dark and which Welles’ suggested cuts did little to remedy. Schafer especially disliked Bernard Herrmann’s somber and what he called “gloomy” music towards the end of the film and, so, wanted it replaced. As Herrmann had left for New York this would have to be done by studio composer Roy Webb.
Nevertheless, Schaefer gave permission for some reshoots that Welles had requested since at this point Welles was still in charge of the film. So, on April 1, Joseph Cotton shot the first of what would eventually evolve into a series of reshoots over the next month. In fact, to assure Welles that he, Welles, was still in charge, Schaefer even called Welles in Rio to get his permission for the re-shoots. These re-shoots included Cotten writing the letter and Bronson giving Wilber Manifer’s epitaph. They were directed by assistant director Freddie Fleck and designed to duplicate cinematographer Stanley Cortez’ photographic look so as to match the rest of the film.
After receiving Welles suggestions Joseph Cotton wrote Welles about the dark approach Welles had taken with the story, especially with the closing boarding house scene. “It is filled with some deep though vague psychological significance that I think you never meant it to have…It is a dark sort of movie, more Chekhov than Tarkington… and at the end there is definitely a feeling of dissatisfaction.” Welles remembers Cotten writing how “terrifying and frightening the last part of the picture is and it’s just too much for the audience.” Cotton felt that Welles should be aware of how much the film’s tone alienated audiences. Welles then received a long letter from Robert Wise in which Wise detailed the preview audience reactions to the film scene by scene concluding that “The picture does seem to bear down on people.”
After mulling over these opinions from people he trusted, Welles came up with his plan to lighten the film. On April 5, 1942, five days after sending his suggested cuts, Welles sent Jack Moss a telegram with suggestions Welles believed would end the film on an upbeat and soften its dark tone.
The end credits would still be narrated but with the following images of the cast. There would be a photo of a younger Major Amberson in his Civil War Uniform, Jack Amberson would be dressed in an elegant white suit seated on a tropical veranda facing the ocean being served drinks by a native servant, Fanny would be enjoying a bridge game with friends at the boarding house, Isabel would be seen as a young girl in a locket held by Eugene, Eugene would be smiling from a window and waving to a happy George and Lucy waving back as they drove off in an automobile. A fadeout and then fade up to into the mike and “this is Orson Welles.”
Between April 5th and the 15th George Schaefer saw a cut of the film that conformed to Welles’ suggestions. Having read Welles revised end credits Schaefer concluded that Orson Welles really had no intention or even ability to lighten his film and what attempts he had made were utterly inadequate. In short, Schaefer believed that Welles had no sense of the dimension of the problem. Schaefer made his feelings clear to Jack Moss and Robert Wise. So, they proposed their March 23rd revision—which Welles had rejected—and on April 15th, George Schaefer turned THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS over to Robert Wise and told Wise to do whatever he deemed necessary to get the film ready for release—in other words preview it so that an audience would actually sit though the movie without any walkouts. Realizing that THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS would never meet his expectations with regard to both box-office and his weakening position at RKO, all Schaefer wanted at this point was a film that could be released. Wise was authorized to use—and did—suggestions and rewrites from Welles but whether to use any of them or not was now completely in the hands of Robert Wise and not Orson Welles. So, April 15th, 1942, was the day that Orson Welles lost control of his film and any issue of him having final cut was mute.
Welles was duly informed of this change of circumstances and that same day it was a desperate Orson Welles who wired Jack Moss asking what his contractual rights were concerning AMBERSONS. He definitely did not want any studio retakes or cuts. Obviously, Welles was trying to figure out if he had some wiggle room. He didn’t. Moss wrote back exactly what Schaefer was told by RKO attorneys after the first preview; RKO could do exactly as they pleased. There can be no doubt that at that moment Orson Welles experienced the full emotional impact of what it meant not having final cut on his film as (using Welles’s word) “They” had taken his film away from him. As this had never happened to Welles either in the Theater or on Radio it was a completely new experience for the man. Normally, if he hadn’t been on “a diplomatic mission” as a representative of the United States State Department in South America, he would have flown back to Hollywood and done the best to save his movie. Unfortunately he felt compelled to remain in South America (corny as this sounds) as a duty to his country. So, through phone calls and telegrams Welles battled the best he could to save as much his film as she could.
The Robert Wise, Jack Moss, Joseph Cotton compromise plan was very similar to what the final release version would look like. A close reading of the note Robert Wise sent Welles in Rio as well as comments made by Cotton in his letter to Welles and it becomes obvious that most of this proposal came from Jack Moss. But, Wise was now in charge and although he used this basic plan as well as following studio demand to remove the gloom, Robert Wise did his best to still keep THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSON an Orson Welles film. Re-instating many of the cuts suggested by Moss, Wise worked under nearly impossible conditions.
During the ensuing month—until the next preview— Wise would inform Welles what he was doing, Welles would provide input—pages of it—and Wise would choose which suggestions were germane to the film as it was now being re-edited. When they needed a scene shortened through reshooting, Welles would write the scene and wire it to Wise. Between April 17 and 22, Freddie Fleck shot additional retakes including the hospital scene ending on April 20 which Welles did not write but, in fact, vociferously disapproved of. Retakes also included a new scene when Isabel was dying and Eugene confronts George while Fanny and Jack persuade him to leave. There was also a complete re-write of the first letter scene between Isabel and George that was not only shorter but made the second letter scene unnecessary. All these scenes were directed by assistant director Fleck with only the latter directed by Wise.
During this period Schaefer and other studio executives would be shown cuts of the film at various stages for their approval and Schaefer would order scenes taken out and after listening to Wise and Moss, order them back in and then order something else taken out. At one time or another these in-and-out scenes included the entire boiler scene, Lucy’s walk with Eugene in the garden, the factory scene, the entire kitchen scene, George and the portrait of his father, Isabel and Eugene beside the tree, and George’s accident. Nevertheless, through all of this—what Welles would later call “hysteria,”—except for the reshoots (scenes written by Welles) and deletions, all the scenes remaining in the film (except for the ending, of course) are cut together exactly as Welles had them cut in the 131 minute rough cut. There can be no doubt this was because Robert Wise was cutting the film and struggling to preserve as much of Welles as he could. Meanwhile Jack Moss acted as an intermediary between Wise and Schaefer making sure things went smoothly.
Cy Endfield, later director of such films as ZULU, had a low-level job at Mercury and had the opportunity to watch the 131 minute version. Years later he would comment, “I was waiting for another round of the CITIZEN KANE experience and instead what I saw was a very lyrical, gently persuasive film of a completely different succession of energies. I thought it was the best picture I’d ever seen but I knew it was boring to other people.” David Selznick who had cinematographer Stanley Cortez under contract saw the complete cut and thought so highly of it, and knowing what was being done, suggested that a copy of the long version be preserved and donated to the Museum of Modern Art. For the rest of his life Robert Wise would say that re-cutting THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was one of the most painful experiences of his life. This is completely understandable. Remember Wise had edited CITIZEN KANE and the AMBERSONS rough cut. And, although he felt that cut had length and pacing problems, Robert Wise believed that THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was a great film and a worthy successor to KANE. He would repeat this to his dying day. Now, trying to save what he could of the film, Robert Wise was knowingly diminishing a great movie. For any editor of talent this was a thoroughly regrettable situation in which to find themselves. But, for the sake of Welles and his film Wise stuck it out to the end and did the very best he could.
Composer Bernard Herrmann’s score suffered as much, if not more than Welles’ film did. Fifty percent of Herrmann’s music was either eliminated or replaced. When it was changed, Herrmann’s—according to George Schaefer—“gloomy music” was replaced with more traditional and in some cases upbeat music by studio composer Roy Web. These deletions and substitutions, as much as the cutting itself, changed the overall tone and ‘feel’ of Welles’ movie. On seeing the released version Herrmann threatened to sue if his name wasn’t taken off the film. As Herman didn’t write the complete score he felt the credit would be deceptive and there was no way that Bernard Herrmann would allow his name to be associated with the kind of music Roy Webb composed. He considered it third-rate schlock. And it should be noted that Herrmann had just won an Oscar for his score to ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY.
For Moss and Wise, the break with Welles and the end of Welles’ participation in the film’s re-vamp occurred in mid to late April. It was over the ending. Moss wanted to drop the Boarding House ending and replace it with something closer to what Welles had in the script. Also, there can be no doubt that Welles had trouble with the reduction of his 12 minute Ball sequence. For the rest of his life Welles lamented over what was done to these two scenes. He considered the complete Ball sequence and especially the final four minute take the greatest tour de force of his entire career. As for the boarding house scene, he not only considered it the best scene in the film but also the summation of the movie. Welles became intransient. He refused to rewrite another ending or approve of the ending suggested. He would shout at Moss on the phone and argued his views in 30 page telegrams that Moss would toss in the trash. Eventually Moss stopped answering Welles calls from Rio as he found them counter-productive to what he and Wise were doing.
So, Moss wrote—in direct violation of Welles wishes—the scenes himself and towards the end of April, assistant director Freddie Fleck, among other retakes, shot the two scenes. Joseph Cotten, one Welles’s closest friends, agreed to participates, although he knew Welles’ feelings about these scenes. Cotten generally believed that it would help the film and possibly turn failure into a success. In addition, he had reservation about the original ending since the Pomona preview and had written Welles as much.
Meanwhile, in Rio the shooting of IT’S ALL TRUE wasn’t going well and costs were mounting. As Brazil is a mixed race country most of the Technicolor footage of actual and or staged carnival scenes showed Blacks and Whites dancing together. Everyone at the studio knew this was unusable because theaters in the segregated south wouldn’t play it. In addition, present costs of IT’S ALL TRUE were now estimated at $241,000 with a further $288,000 to complete. Add the unfinished BENITO and with reshoots and post production, the final cost could approach $1.3 million. It was this issue that irreparably damaged the relationship between Welles and George Schaefer as Schaefer could not justify these costs to the RKO board and, with another million at stake with AMBERSONS, Schaefer saw his job slipping away.
So, on April 29, 1942, while in New York, George Schaeffer wrote Welles a brutal letter in which he carefully detailed his complaints about Welles without sugar coating anything. Schaeffer made it very clear that his, Schaeffer’s, job was on the line, that he no longer had any confidence in Welles, that he couldn’t trust him to keep his word, that Welles had turned the entire Brazilian episode into a catastrophe, that he was an employee of RKO first and a “Goodwill Ambassador” second. The letter went on to detail every issue that Schaefer had with Welles. He begged Welles, and that was the word he used, to finish up in Brazil as quickly as possible, get back to L.A. and finish the movie before costs made it impossible to complete. If not, Schaeffer was going to close down the production and write it off. He then brought up KANE and all the trouble Welles had made for the Studio over the film’s release. “The abuse that was heaped on myself and the company will never be forgotten. I was about as punch-drunk as a man ever was. I made my decision to stand by you and I saw it through. I have never asked anything in return, but in common decency I should expect that I would at least have your loyalty and gratitude…it was one problem on CITIZEN KANE; sickness on AMBERSONS; $150,000 over on JOURNEY INTO FEAR, now what is the answer in Brazil? Here was a real opportunity to show the industry that without adequate equipment and with a most difficult problem, you were able to come through.” Schaefer wrote Welles that he was sending an RKO executive to Rio who, unless Welles didn’t finish up the film, had the authority to send everyone home.
Five days later a revamped 93 minute version of THE MAGNIFICNT AMBERSONS was previewed in Inglewood with the original Boarding House ending. Leaving in the boarding house ending was done in deference to Welles who had argued so vociferously for it to remain. There were still a few walkouts but the preview cards were the same as Pasadena. The audience either hated the film or loved it. But, nonetheless, there were no “One of The Greatest films ever made” comments at this preview.
On May 12, the fourth and final preview was held at Long Beach. This version ran 87 minutes and contained the release version hospital ending. Isabel and Eugene at the tree was cut as was the drugstore scene but it did contain George opening his father’s photo. Again, the preview cards were still divided, some calling the film depressing and gloomy, others saying it was fascinating but this time they were two-thirds favorable. More importantly, there were no walk outs and so the re-vamped ending would remain. Wise had structured a film that could now hold an audience. Tinkering a bit more, on the 19th Fleck reshot the beginning of the boiler scene to tone down Fanny’s hysterics early so, as the scene progresses, it cuts into the rest of the scene as Welles shot it thus eliminating the last of the inappropriate laughs and, as far as Wise and Moss were concerned, they had done the best they could with the film.
Before approving the cut Schaefer ordered George and the Photo scene removed and Eugene and Isabel at the tree and the drugstore scene restored. The head of Production at the studio had wanted the kitchen scene entirely removed but Schaefer overruled him and, the cutting now complete, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was shipped to New York on June 5th and on June 8th Schaefer cleared it for release approximately five months after principal photography was completed. The reshoots and other tinkering added another $100,000 to the budget.
On June 26th George Schaefer was forced to resign and on July 1st Mercury productions was ordered off the RKO lot by the new regime at RKO. In short, Orson Welles had been fired. In August Welles returned to the States and, while in New York, saw the film then playing at The Capital Theater. He walked out of the theater heartbroken. When the film completed its release and was retired, THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS went down on the RKO books as a $600,000 loss.
PART TWO
THE ROBERT WISE CUT
Change is one of the three central themes of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. The other two being the alteration in one’s perspective of life as one ages and, most importantly, the impermanence of life—what may be important today can, and often is, forgotten or irrelevant tomorrow.
These were themes Tarkington dealt with in his novel and one of the reasons why it won the writer his first Pulitzer Prize. But, prior to Welles’ AMBERSONS, when translating a novel to a film, themes of this sort were always sublimated to the central story and became more implied than stated. In AMBERSONS Welles was attempting something different; he was making a film with a philosophical subtext that, like a novel, is not implied but becomes an integral part of the film. In doing so Welles made a film faithful to Tarkington not only in its personal story but also in the important themes the book had tackled. Example; the Amberson Mansion literarily becomes a character in Welles’ film and, so, by film’s end, its painful decline embodied one of these themes. In addition, while making his film Welles discovered the dark undertones in the Tarkington novel which the author had managed to handle with a light touch. Welles on the other hand chose to bring this darkness to the fore and, in doing so, created what would eventually become a dark, brooding work whose central theme becomes painfully apparent in the film’s final scene—a scene not in Tarkington’s book—which encapsulated Welles’ distillation of Tarkington.
As such, Editor Robert Wise did not “destroy” THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. In fact, he saved it from the studio butchery it might have suffered if Wise had not, as difficult as it was for him, remained with the project. Wise would comment later, “This happens very many times with an editor, if there’s a difference of opinion between the director or producer and the front office, the editor is going to find himself on the spot.” What Wise did do was to change the film; transforming it into an alternate approach to the Tarkington novel. Reshuffling and re-shooting, Wise transformed THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS from the dark, character driven mood-piece Orson Welles had created—and RKO had rejected. Instead, he turned AMBERSONS into a narrative or story-driven film that could “hold” (Wise’s term) an audience and that RKO would find acceptable. In doing so—using present day terminology—Robert Wise ‘dumbed-down’ the film and, in doing so, Welles’ delicate and textured mood piece was lost; replaced by a more conventional film adaptation.
Thanks to Richard Carrington, the public now has the 131 minute rough-cut cutting continuity and due to efforts of Tony Bremner and the Australian Philharmonic we also have a complete recording of Bernard Herrmann’s evocative film score. Using these tools as well as film stills and story boards and frames of lost scenes, Welles 131 minute rough-cut can be actualized sufficiently so that the two versions can be analyzed side-by-side.
It should also be remembered that it was Robert Wise, under Welles’s direction who put together the 131 minute version and, ready to travel to Rio planned, with Welles, hone the film down to its final form. As such, the 131 minute rough-cut was never intended to be the completed film. Wise had problems with the film’s length, it’s pacing as well as certain scenes. In this respect he and Welles made a good partnership as Wise forced Welles to continually think of the material in terms of audience receptivity. So, if anyone at RKO knew both the virtues of the 131 minute rough-cut as well as its faults, it was Robert Wise. I have seen rough cuts and then the completed film. The differences are usually repetition, over statement and small elements that don’t quite work and are either eliminated or corrected by trimming and occasionally the re-arrangement of scenes or individual shots. Nevertheless, whether in rough cut or in released form, it is the same film with the rough cut simply being more elongated.
When THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS was turned over to Robert Wise on April 15, 1942. Wise had approximately two months to recut the film in such a way that it would receive studio approval as well as preserve as much of Welles as he could. In addition, by the end of his re-edit it was studio bosses and not Robert Wise who determined which scenes remained and which were cut—and Wise and Moss argued hard to re-insert many of the scenes the studio wanted cut. This issue continued right up the time the film was finally approved and sent to New York.
What follows are the scenes eliminated or altered from the 131 minute Rough Cut with a short analysis of each scene and what Wise did with them.
THE CUTS AND CHANGES
EUGENE’S WALK
Following the “fashion show” Welles used Eugene’s walk to the Amberson Mansion not only to show how well liked and popular Eugene is but present the audience with a picture of exactly how rural the town was and, as such, what an anomaly the Amberson Mansion is in such a provincial setting. During this walk, along with narration and comments by the town’s people (who act as a sort of Greek Chorus) both the Amberson Mansion as well as the town’s origins are explained. In this way Welles presented both the town and the Mansion as important motifs.
Wise eliminated Eugene’s walk by cutting from the opening house to the “fashion show” and then returning to the house for the serenade. With this re-arrangement and cut, Wise accomplished two things. First, he gave the Eugene Isabelle ‘break’ greater immediacy and was able to jettison most of the narration and Greek Chorus discussing the town and Mansion, leaving this aspect of the film implied rather than stated. This was also the first deletion of Bernard Herrmann’s score as the humorous music which accompanied Eugene’ walk was also eliminated.
PONY CART
Ten year old George announces, as he races his pony cart about town, to a laborer he has angered, that his grandfather owns the town and someday he will as well. Welles uses this bit of dialogue to present the audience with young George’s sense of himself. Even at age 10 he imagines himself as akin to royalty.
Wise cut this bit of dialogue to make the scene flow better and, for his version, the dialogue was redundant. The audiences sees and doesn’t need to be told how young George thinks of himself. It now becomes implied.
THE FOTA
In Welles’s character driven rough cut The FOTA sequence is there to establish how ruthless George could be in getting his way—something the sequence implies is quite often—even resorting to unethical means to accomplish his goal. In other words, George Minafer Amberson could not accept the word no and, fundamentally demonstrated his emotionally immaturity. This would reverberate later in the film and explain why George responded so drastically the way he did at having been repeatedly told “no” by Lucy which eventually created (in his mind at least) the antipathy he perceived from Eugene thereby saving George from having to face his own shortcomings.
Wise cut the entire sequence for three very important reasons. It was a distraction delaying the film from immediately moving to the all-important ball sequence, showed George in a bad light and, with regard to the narrative or story, served absolutely no purpose. In fact, it bogged down the film at a point where Wise felt it needed to maintain audience interest. In any case George’s “I want what I want” character trait had been established earlier so, in the Wise cut, the FOTA scene was redundant.
THE BALL
The original 1o minute Amberson ball sequence on the third floor of the Amberson Mansion was composed of 8 shots with the last running just over 4 minutes that literally “walked” the viewer around the third floor of the Amberson mansion ending up with Eugene and Isabel dancing and George making his yachtsman announcement. The ball sequence was intended to give the audience a sense of the “magnificence” of the house and what made the Ambersons—in this town at least—“magnificent.” In terms of ambiance what Welles accomplished with this sequence is remarkable. Because he created four-walled sets with breakaway walls and ceilings allowing the camera to move about freely, the viewer doesn’t sense they are watching sets but, instead, an actual house. Therefore, using these long takes Welles not only brought the audience into this world but, with the camera as their POV, audiences become on lookers–ease droppers so to speak–experiencing the ball along with the characters.
Since the preview audience grew restless during those 10 minutes, Wise concluded that he needed to cut the sequence down not only for pacing purposes but to maintain audience interest early in the film. Thus, making three cuts of four minutes Wise brought the third floor ball sequence down to just over six minutes.
The first to go was the Uncle John scenes on the third floor. This involved cutting three one-take shots and part of a fourth. The Uncle John scene was there to establish that, despite all the Amberson refinement, Uncle John is a painful reminder of what the town still is despite Amberson ostentation and amplifies the point Eugene’s walk had established earlier: this is a provincial hamlet a generation or two from being un-settled wilderness. There was some narrative business. Fanny meets Lucy and George insists on getting his way by pressuring Lucy for all her dances; pressuring she resists. Although, obviously important narrative points but later viewers will see, after the Ball, George demand to take Lucy sly riding and, after resisting, she impulsively acceded. So Wise concluded that this earlier material at the top of the stairs was redundant and therefore could be dispensed with. As for Fanny meeting Lucy, it could be assumed that Fanny met Lucy sometime during the ball. Therefore, Wise—thinking narrative and pacing—dropped the Uncle John material and the scenes that accompanied it.
The next cut occurs after Lucy and George descend the stairs while Eugene and Isabel remain on the landing talking and then descend to join Jack and Fanny as the four walk towards the punch bowl. In the rough cut, the four discuss an important theme: the difference in mind-set between the young and the old and reasons for it. This material is there to help the audience understand George’s thinking later in the film as well as give us insight and preparation for Eugene’s letter. Since this section was all about change, in the Welles rough cut, it is a crucial reflective moment as viewers are made to understand these character’s thinking and their perspective on the issue. In addition Isabel expresses, in an understandable way, her over protective feelings regarding George. For Wise the scene had nothing to do with the central story and slowed up the film. Since Eugene spoke about old-versus young in his letter there was no need for it here and using a lap dissolve Wise cut it and had Eugene, Jack, Isabel and Fanny immediately reach the punchbowl.
The Final cut involved and George walking away from the buffet table leaving Mrs. Johnson and friends searching for olives. This was a lead-up to the olive commotion later in the four minute take and its removal in the release version eliminated a lose end.
The next cut continued during the beginning of the next shot—a four minute take—where Lucy and George roam a bit and George interacts with a guest—arrogantly—and then the camera moves to Jack and Eugene as they casually walk around the third floor moving from one room to the next, crowds of people swirling about them as the camera tracks in front of them. Their conversation presents a different point of view on life as it expands the viewers understanding of who these two men; Jack the nostalgic cynic and Eugene the optimist realist. As they walk, each expresses their opinion of George and the reason why Isabel is so devoted to him until the discussion is interrupted when Mrs. Johnson and her friends find a servant carrying the Olives they had been looking for and their humorous conversation about the olives—apparently something new to them—heightens the contrast between the Ambersons and the provincial world in which this great majestic house sits. When that is over, Eugene and Jack resume their walk reaching the fireplace in the front of the dance floor where the Wise’s cut ends and the film returns to what’s left of Welles’ four minute take. This was probably one of the most complicated single-take shots ever made in Hollywood up to that time. It and the entire ball sequence was designed to give the viewer – as onlooker – a sense of the great house and the style of living which it embodied.
In cutting down this scene Robert Wise was his most brutal in transforming Welles’ character driven film into a narrative driven one. For Wise, needing to tighten up the ball sequences, the earlier part the four minute take presented absolutely nothing that moved the story along. To him, the olive business was utterly extraneous and the discussion about George unnecessary because viewers would soon learn everything that they needed to know about him. As for the townspeople’s feelings regarding George, that had been established earlier. So, needing to make the ball sequence “hold” audience’s interest this material was removed leaving the ball sequence as it exists today. Years later Welles would complain that it had been argued that the olive business had nothing to do with the plot, whereas Welles felt it WAS the plot and this pretty much encapsulated the different approach of Welles verses Wise to the film.
Regarding the music for the ball sequence Herrmann did use “At a Georgia Camp Meeting” and Wise in a letter to Welles before the previews did bring up “Beautiful Ohio waltz” so that was probably a Herrmann suggestion. As for the rest of the ball sequence much of the music was period and orchestrated by either Herrmann or by Roy Web with one of Web’s contributions being Boccherini’s Minuet as Lucy and George approach and walk up the stairs. It should be noted that because Welles was in Rio when the scoring was done, other than suggestions and approving Herrmann’s over all music during production, Welles was not involved in the film’s final scoring. This was worked out by Wise and Herrmann.
AUTO RIDE HOME
At the end of the auto ride home, after the ball, Lucy asks her father’s opinion about George and then questions her father in a round-about-way why Isabel married Wilber and her father dismisses the question with “Wilber’s all right.” Here Welles shows, Lucy trying to “figure out” George as well as, after meeting this married couple only once, even Lucy can see that it is basically a loveless marriage.
Wise cut the later part of the scene since the audience already knows it is a loveless marriage. They were told this in the beginning of the film.
THE BARN
The scene occurs after the Ambersons finally go to bed. In the script this scene and auto ride home were one scene but during filming Welles decided to break it up into two separate scenes. In Welles rough cut the scene had three functions. First, it showed the Spartan life both Eugene and Lucy lived so that as Eugene’s business became more and more successful the audience will see how far he has risen, when later in the film, he is a millionaire. Second, the scene showed how dedicated Eugene was to perfecting his car; working on its headlight well into the night to correct a problem. Third, it exemplifies exactly how comfortably and honestly Lucy interacts with her father and the dynamic of their relationship. This is a trusting, healthy father-daughter relationship which—tying it to the earlier car ride—demonstrated how comfortable Lucy felt speaking her mind to an approving and accepting father as she continued to think through her mixed feelings about George. Lucy is presented as a sensible, thoughtful independent person. Thus, this scene, the post ball car ride and, later in the film, Lucy’s walk in the garden with her father act as a contrast to the basically infantile relationship George has with his over protective mother. Finally the horses in the barn indicate that Eugene owns a horse drawn carriage and took his problematic auto to the ball to impress the Amberson family and especially Isabel. George’s line: ” People that own elephants don’t take their elephants around with ‘em when they go visiting” emphasizes this.
Struggling to keep the narrative moving, Wise cut the entire scene which Wise saw as slow and repetitive. The audience already learned Lucy’s thinking about George on the auto ride home and, from a narrative point of view, this made the scene superfluous and easy to eliminate without hurting “the Story.” In addition, the preview audiences weren’t very responsive to it. So, by cutting the scene, the film went from the Ambersons going to sleep—a scene the preview audiences had liked—right to the snow excursion, another scene they had responded favorably towards and, thus, Wise could better focus the narrative and speed up the film’s pacing.
THE SNOW EXCURSION
In the Welles Rough Cut the snow scene had two parts. The first which is in the release version and a second in which Welles dealt with certain issues through a short discussion between Isabel, Eugene and Jack concerning how the perspective of youth changes and how much the town was changing. Then there was a short bit dealing with George’s reaction to the decaying condition of a housing development his grandfather had built; a demonstration of George’s difficulty accepting any change to the world of his childhood and in fact, to any change at all. In addition, we see the first sign of friction between George and Lucy as Lucy shows herself not to be docile but a worthy foil to George which only serves to increase his interest.
Since, except for the last section of the scene, the preview audience had responded favorably, other than removing the second part, Wise left the scene intact. He cut this second part as it put the changing character of the town in a negative light early in the film and the issue of the young verses old was material dealt with later in the film with Eugene’s letter. Since Wise had been ordered by RKO to lighten the film, in this way he ended the scene on up note. As for the Lucy George conflict it would be dealt with later in the buggy ride so the bit here, story wise, could be seen as unnecessary and repetitive. Wise made the cut and moved the film immediately to Wilber’s death.
CEMETERY STONE AND DIPLOMA
After Wilber’s death a cemetery stone is shown and following this a Harvard Diploma with George’s name on it. The gravestone was there to show where all men go and the finite nature of life. In other words, the inevitability of change. The diploma was there to indicate that life goes on and that George had finally graduated from college. The Herrmann music used here emphasized this.
In the Wise version the gravestone was replaced with Bronson giving Wilber’s epitaph and the Diploma cut as the audience would learn this information during the conversation in the Kitchen scene. The Herrmann music that emphasized the ‘life goes on nature’ nature of this shot was also removed.
THE EXACUATIONS.
In the Welles Rough-Cut after Fanny had fled the kitchen George and Uncle Jack discuss her situation. When George looks out the window he notices that the mansion’s side yard is being dug up. He dashes out into a pouring rain to see what is happening and discovers, Major Amberson is building rental houses on their side lawn. Jack explains that the Major needs the money and George, even after being told this, doesn’t comprehend that the family’s money is slipping away. In his complete denial, it is another example of George’s inability to accept change. This is emphasized later in the film when he tells Lucy that he refuses to pursue a career but, rather, live an honorable life. The question to be asked; with what money? Consequently, in Welles’ version the scene is crucial as it provides the audience with not only George’s mind-set but also how his perception of himself is inextricably tied to the Amberson mansion being the best house in town. Thus, the reason for his extreme response to the excavations.
Wise didn’t think twice about cutting the scene. At both previews audiences laughed at George hysterical response and, to his dying day, Wise talked about how this scene played to an audience. “Horrible.”
REARRGEMENT BUGGY RIDE AND ISABEL AND EUGENE AT THE TREE
In Welles’ rough cut the buggy ride immediately follows the factory visit. Leaving the factory Lucy and George step onto his buggy and drive off while Eugene, Isabel and Fanny board Eugene’s car and then pass George and Lucy in a cloud of smoke which leads to the famous one-take buggy ride. Next is the major in his carriage followed by the first Porch scene and then Eugene and Isabel sitting in the Amberson arbor discussing telling George about their plans to marry. It’s very subtle what Welles was doing here. The factory scene shows us the feelings that Eugene and Isabel obviously have for each other. The buggy ride establishes the ill feelings George has for Eugene, believing it is Eugene’s influence that is preventing Lucy from accepting George’s marriage proposal, not her own independent thinking. George is stewing about this during the First Porch scene, believing Eugene has lost him Lucy. Then, with the Eugene-Isabel scene following, the audience is prepared for the sudden, childish and un-characteristically rude “useless” comment George blurts at the dinner table. Instead of looking at himself for the problems he has with Lucy, unable to see that the fault is in himself and his unrealistic view of life, instead, he blames Eugene. Thus, learning about Eugene and his mother, George’s feelings of antipathy towards Eugene is fueled and the audience knows exactly why.
In the Wise version, Wise put the Arber scene following the visit to the factory to put emphasis on the Isabel-Eugene relationship. At the factory Eugene expresses feelings for Isabel and shortly thereafter the two realize that they are in love. The release version then cuts to the Buggy ride introducing the conflict between George and Lucy simplifying the reasons for George’s antipathy towards Eugene at the dinner table.
THE MAJOR’S CARRIAGE
During the Major’s carriage ride, after discussing his money situation and the changes to the town, Major Amberson alludes to his death. Besides preparing the audience for the darker aspect of the film, the conversation again brings up the subject of change. Accordingly, Herrmann composed a dark piece of music for the scene as further preparation for the darker elements to come.
In the Wise version, Wise eliminated both Herrmann’s music as well as the last section concerning death in another attempt to lighten the film. But Wise left, in the earlier part of the scene, the reference to the town changing and a hint of one of the important themes in Welles’ rough cut (the changing town) that Wise carefully pared away.
FIRST PORCH
On the surface there isn’t much to this scene. It’s the late summer and the evening following the factory visit and George’s and Lucy’s buggy ride. After a short shot of the activity on the street as seen from the side porch—mostly carriages and bicycles and a rare auto, the camera cuts to a reverse shot for a 6 minute single take-single-angle shot of the porch. On the Mansion’s side porch sometime after dinner Fanny is in her rocking chair. Across the porch from her is Isabel while George sits on the porch steps dressed in his formal dinner clothes. George is so lost in his thoughts, he isn’t paying any attention to the two woman’s casual conversation. As the audience watches the three, they hear the movement on the street. This single-take, one camera-position six minute scene is an absolutely audacious piece of filmmaking. The simplicity of the scene belies its density in terms of character exposition.
Earlier, during the kitchen scene, Fanny was beginning to put things together as to where Eugene’s romantic interest really lie but it was during the factory visit that Fanny finally concludes Isabel holds Eugene’s real interest and not her. So, sitting in her rocking chair discussing Eugene’s business and the ride they took in his car earlier in the day–because she feels spurned–in a snide way Fanny wishes both the man’s business and his life’s work ill. Then, after Isabel walks inside the house Fanny isn’t content to disparage just Eugene but expresses her ire towards Isabel by disparaging her sister-in-law to George with regards to Isabel probably no longer wearing mourning clothes for Wilber. This complaint falls on deaf ears as George, involved in his own problems, quickly dismisses Fanny’s comment and, in a huff, Fanny walks into the house. Not until I read this scene did I realize to what degree Fanny was both narcotic and a narcissist and to what degree Fanny hid her real self under a false veneer. In short, Fanny was an emotionally immature phony.
The scene also contrasted the personalities of Fanny and Isabel—the latter with a positive view of people and life and the former with a view solely determined by her neurotic, emotional needs. The scene also provides clear evidence why Eugene is in love with one and not the other. Isabel, surprised by Fanny’s take on Eugene and his business has nothing but good things to say about both. Even watching the town gossip, Mrs. Johnson across the street at her bedroom window with a pair of binoculars “spying”, she doesn’t disparage the woman but is only amused. Thus, Isabel shows herself to be everything that Eugene believes her to be. Compared to Fanny, Isabel is genuine.
Regarding George, it is only after Isabel and Fanny enter the house and the single-shot-take ends that we see what he is brooding about through the use of two fantasies. Since the same George of the FOTA, couldn’t get his way with Lucy who has spurned his proposal, George has a fantasy more appropriate to a 14 year old as he images Lucy spurning her father instead of George and, on her knees, begging for George’s forgiveness by telling him that he is absolutely right. It doesn’t take George long to see the absurdity of this. Then moving to the opposite extreme, George imagines a second fantasy; Lucy on her porch surrounded by suiters. In a fit of jealousy, George stands, paces the porch, repeatedly calling these imaginary suiters “Riff-Raff” and marches into the house in a fit of temper. All of this is of course in his imagination.
At this point in Welles rough cut this scene as well as the excavation scene have given the audience an insight into George’s inability to accept change, his use of denial as a coping mechanism; all of which give explanation to his childish outburst at the dinner table as well as his inability to accept that his mother might marry Eugene because if that ever happened – as he sees it – his world as he knows it would cease to exist. Thus from a psychological point of view all of George’s extreme actions make perfect sense.
The final element of the scene is the town. The audience sees for itself the town – experiences it for themselves – what the the narrator spoke of in the beginning of the film; a community of slow easy days when citizens—including Mrs. Johnson and her binoculars—could sit on their porch watching passersbys while enjoying the simple pleasures of a summer evening. But, as it occurred in the film’s opening, the scene doesn’t speed the audience through this. Instead, the audience experiences in real time exactly what the characters experience. Once again Welles makes the audience an on looking participant. He does the same in all the single-take-single angle-scenes throughout the film. There is no time cheating there. In other words Welles doesn’t so much “tell” the audience the story as much as he has them experience it. This is bravura filmmaking at its very best.
If Welles staging of the one-take-one-camera-position kitchen scene and the one-take-one-angle scene of Jack’s return in the Morgan drawing room are any indication, the staging and acting here must have been equally as brilliant. The sound of Fanny’s rocking chair providing the viewer a glimpse into her thinking, Isabel in quiet thoughtful silhouette then standing and walking to the porch steps as she watches Mrs. Johnson; it is easy to imagine how Welles turned this into a powerfully evocative scene helped by Bernard Herrmann’s equally evocative music. The music not only gave the scene the right tone but spoke of times past; times like the summer Isabel speaks of, which was soon to disappear. In fact one of the tragedies of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS is that this scene was, for various reasons, removed before both the Pomona and Pasadena Previews and was never seen by the public
For Robert Wise’s narrative driven film the scene – although he wrote Welles it was good – didn’t do anything to advance the story and so he eliminated it. Wise had had problems with the scene’s pacing and its effect on the film even before the previews and felt it should be cut as it slowed the film down when it least needed it. As it was a single take scene without any camera movement there was simply no way that it could be tightened by trimming so, Wise—who was ready to argue for its deletion if he had gone to Rio—thought it best to just remove it.
THE DINNER AND FIRST STAIRCASE SCENE
During the opening of the dinner scene, for transition purposes, Welles reused a bit of the music Herrmann had composed for the scene of Eugene and Isabel at the tree which had originally proceeded the dinner scene. Hermann had also composed music for Fanny and George’s first confrontation on the staircase. In the Wise version the music for both scenes were removed.
THE BATHROOM
In the Rough Cut the bathroom scene served two functions. It let the audience know exactly how childish George was in his frantic, histrionic response to the possibility of his mother marrying and as a result, his life changing. In this instance denial is again demonstrated through hysteria. In addition, the second part of the scene informed the audience that Isabel was ill, preparing them for her death just five years later. But what is most important about this second section is how George dismisses this information about his mother’s ill health and once again demonstrating denial as his principle coping tool.
Wise trimmed some of George’s histrionics in the first section of the scene and cut the entire second part regarding Isabel’s health. I can only surmise this was done to “lighten” the film but, unfortunately, it removed preparation as to why, later in the film, Isabel had gotten sick so fast and returns home near death.
THE PHOTOGRAPH
When I read this scene, I laughed. This is Welles (and Tarkington) at their most sublime as there is no better demonstration of George’s childish thinking process. Learning what is happening between his mother and Eugene, George is going to use this photograph of his father to basically, as we say today, “lay a guilt trip” on his mother for being interested in another man. In other words make her aware that she was being disloyal to her former husband’s memory. Later, after George turns Eugene away, and Isabel enters the room and sees the photograph, and it has absolutely no effect on her, George leaves the room in a huff disappointed that his plan has failed. Isabel then sits and waits for Eugene.
To improve pacing and get to an important story point, Wise cut the photograph, Isabel speaking with George and most of Isabel waiting. Up until the film’s final approval by RKO, the photograph scene had been in the film but was removed at the very last minute. With the removal of Isabel waiting for Eugene, the Bernard Herrmann music accompanying it was also cut from the film.
FIRST LETTER
Welles had re-written and re-shot this scene while the film was still in production. In doing so he softened George a bit, shortened the scene, removed comments about a scene no longer in the film as well as a eliminated a HAMLET reference.
In Welles’ rough cut the sequence begins with Isabel reading the letter as we hear Eugene voicing it. She stands, walks, sits, rises and then walks again. This cuts to a short scene in George’s room where George has just finished reading the letter and almost tosses it into the fire. He then marches to his mother’s room where he voices his outrage at the letter and the very idea of his mother marrying. Not only does he find it unacceptable but after tossing the letter into the fireplace announces before leaving the room that if his mother even sees Eugene again, in so many words, George and his mother’s relationship would be irreparably strained, leaving his mother torn and confused.
Welles rough cut, in revealing the dynamics of George’s personality, had carefully prepared the audience for George’s remarkably selfish and infantile behavior here. The audience can understand why George is behaving so irrationally because Welles had carefully—almost step by step—illuminated George’s mental landscape: immature, relying on denial to deal with anything he found unpleasant, threatening or unacceptable as well as wanting his way when unable to deal with anything that conflicted with his sense of reality. In short, if Eugene married his mother George Minafer’s world would fall apart and, in a sense, backed into corner George was desperately fighting for his life the way it was.
Wise reshot the scene in a Welles re-write sent from Rio that not only shortened the scene but also softened George’s reaction to the letter. Bernard Hermann’s score here was replaced with music written by Roy Web. The letter scene now starts with Eugene writing the letter, then we hear him read it, cut to first floor of the Amberson mansion with the last part of the scene finally showing Isabel reading the letter. Some upbeat music by Roy Webb was interjected with Herrmann’s. In dealing with his mother in the Robert Wise scene George is more perplexed than outraged, leaving him confused rather than Isabel while Isabel, acting decisively, tells George that she will write Eugene and tell him that it was over between them. In terms of the film’s narrative, the scene is shorter, more direct, made its point quickly, strengthened Isabel’s character and showed George behavior in a more acceptable light. Bernard Herman’s music for this scene was replaced with music written by Roy Web.
SECOND LETTER
In Welles rough cut, sometime after George leaves his mother’s room, Isabel’s slips a note under his door which George reads in bed while the audience hears Isabel’s heartfelt voice. She has decided not to see Eugene again, has written Eugene about this and, essentially, as is his want, George has once again gotten his way. Since the reshoot of the scene with George and Isabel made this scene redundant it was cut. With it removed the music that Herrmann had composed for it was also cut.
LUCY AND GEORGE’S WALK
In Welles’ rough cut after George turns away and at the end of the long one-take shot, Lucy walks into the pharmacy. In the Wise Version before Lucy enters the store, there is a close-up showing her pained expression and then the film cuts back to the Welles’ shot of her walking into the pharmacy. Obviously it was decided that in the original version it was unclear what Lucy’s real feelings were and so the close-up is there to tell the audience how pained Lucy was at the thought of never seeing George again as well as how deeply in love with him she is.
THE POOL ROOM
In the Welles Version later that night the pharmacy clerk tells his friends in the pool hall that Lucy has fainted. Since Wise, along with the rough cut that he had sent to Welles in Rio, had included an alternate take of Lucy in the shop where a surprised clerk’s response makes it clear that Lucy had fainted, there was no need for the Pool room scene and it is that alternate take that is in the Wise version.
SECOND PORCH SCENE
In the Welles rough cut this second porch scene is, of course a companion to the first. Like the first it was a one-take one-setup scene. But unlike the first porch scene it was shot sideways, with Fanny close to the camera as it shoots across to The Major and beyond him to Mrs. Johnson’s house and the street. They are dimly lit as we hear them speak while we see activity on the street. Very little is discussed, Fanny talks about investing in the headlight business and the Major, in addition to discussing his money problems, mentions missing Isabel and her failing health and then decides along with Fanny to invest in the head light business.
Besides the information about Amberson’s declining fortune and Fanny’s eagerness to invest her money, the scene accomplishes a great deal. Looking at the street only five years years after that first porch scene, it is now dominated by the automobile with fewer carriages and bicycles. Viewers see and hear for themselves that the town is changing as the once wealthy Major Amberson, his money worries troubling him, is unable to re-establish his fortune in a changing world that he cannot sort his way through. If any individual scene in the film shows how much the town has changed, it is this one and a theme that Welles’ version tackled head on. Put together, the two porch scenes demonstrate clearly how much the world of the Ambersons and the town in which they live are evolving into something else; literally, right before theirs and the audiences’ eyes. With Amberson and Fanny dimly lit, shot in profile and with all the movement on the street in the background, one can only imagine what Welles did with the staging to create what was an extremely evocative set piece.
As the scene did absolutely nothing to drive the narrative, Wise both cut it and with it the music that Herrmann composed for the scene. About the only bit of narrative importance was the investment in the headlight business, the declining Amberson fortune and Isabel’s declining health. Since Isabel’s condition is discussed later by Jack, the declining Amberson fortune is discussed later when referring to the messed up estate, and Fanny’s investment story-wise wasn’t necessary here as it would be left as a surprise at the end of the film, the scene was deemed unnecessary. In fact, along with the first Porch scene Wise had also wanted this scene removed even before he sent the rough cut to Welles in Rio. Wise felt that the scene, as good as it was, slowed up the film so much so that it adversely affected the impact of the rest of the movie. For various reasons, like the first porch seen this had not been included in any of the previews and, so, the public never had a chance to see it.
JACK’S RETURN
When jack arrives at Eugene’s new home—in fact a mansion—after he and Lucy leave the car and walk to the portico, the two stop and turn to look at the town. Jack discusses the changes to the town and how this mansion is now the new Amberson mansion as the city movies “further out.”
Wise cut this section of the scene and redubbed the dialogue as they walked to the house and then cut directly to the Eugene, Jack and Lucy in the drawing room. It is obvious that this was done to minimize the town and the Amberson Mansion as motifs and, instead, concentrate on “story.”
FIRST PART OF ISABEL’S DEATH
In Welles’s rough cut, after Isabel’s return home, a short time later she is on her death bed while the Major, Jack and George wait to say their goodbyes. It’s another one-take-one-angle scene in which a somewhat confused Major Amberson is in both physical and mental decline now depends on his cane to walk. But what is most striking about the scene is George who, as the Major and Jack stand, is sitting and is absolutely devastated. In this scene and the one that follows we can see the depth of pain and mental anguish George is experiencing at the thought of losing his mother and what her loss will mean to him. George’s mother and his world are literally dying before his eyes.
While the Major and Jack walk into Isabel’s room George stands as Fanny comes up the stairs and, uncomfortable, whispers to George that Eugene is downstairs waiting to see Isabel and she doesn’t know what to say. George first distracted and then annoyed, tells her to tell Eugene that the doctor said Isabel needed to be quiet and peaceful. George wasn’t willing to share even his mother’s death with Eugene who George still refers to as a stranger.
Wise cut the this entire scene as it could be seen as redundant—we observe George’s grief at his mother bedside and see the Major’s decline later when he sits in front of the fire—and so it didn’t add much to the “story.” Also, and probably a big reason for the cut, Wise had been ordered to lighten the film and although Isabel’s death is one of the most powerful, if not, the most overpowering sequences in the film, it was considered too downbeat so Wise cut it to its absolute essentials.
EUGENE TURNED AWAY
In the Rough Cut, Eugene is sitting downstairs waiting, grief written on his face. When fanny appears Eugene stands and walks towards her and is told that Isabel needs quiet. Eugene begs to just look into the room and see her. Fanny replies again that the doctor has said that she mustn’t see anyone. Eugene, disappointed, heartbroken and defeated turns and leaves the house while George, standing beside an upstairs window watches him walk to his car.
For the Wise version the scene was rewritten by Welles and reshot by his assistant director. Here Eugene is more assertive as he confronts George when George tries to stop him but only decides to leave on the advice of Fanny and Jack because it wouldn’t be good for Isabel and not because of George’s wishes. The scene adds further conflict to the Eugene-George relationship and can be interpreted as more “dramatic.”
ISABEL’S DEATH
Bernard Herrmann had written music to accompany Isabell talking to George before her death. Wise eliminated it.
LAST PART OF ISABEL’S DEATH
In Welles rough cut, after George speaks with his mother he returns to his room and is surprised to find the Major asleep on his bed and Jack and Fanny in the room waiting. Realizing that they are waiting for his mother to die George is simply incapable of believing what is about to happen and suddenly—as if wishing it was true—announces that a doctor in New York said that she would get better. As with the earlier scene the audience can see the depth of George’s grief. But they also see something else. George is still in denial even with the truth in front of him, incapable of grasping the enormity of what is happening to him. Bernard Herrmann’s music was used when the major wakes as it is apparent that Isabel has died.
In cutting Isabel’s death to essentials Wise cuts from George leaving his mother to a shot of the Major asleep on George’s bed and then waking up as everyone learns Isabel has died. The music here is Herrmann’s.
MAJOR’S DEATH
Following Isabel’s death a diminished Major sits in front of a fire contemplating and coming to grips with his own impending death. With the camera on him we hear the voices of George, Jack and Fanny in the background. Jack is concerned about the Amberson estate—it is in a shambles—while Fanny speaks frantically to Jack about the fact that the headlight business in which she and Jack have invested all their money is failing. For the scene Bernard Hermann had written very evocative and poignant score.
Wise—who after Welles set up the shot actually filmed the Major in front of the fire—kept the scene pretty much intact. He removed Fanny and the headlight business from the background conversation, cut the latter part of the Major’s monologue where, as the major continues his musings, George asks him if he wants anything and Wise eliminated most of | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 11 | https://www.filmsite.org/citi.html | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://www.filmsite.org/images/filmsite-header-bold-A.jpg",
"https://www.filmsite.org/images/filmsite-movie-review-hdr.jpg",
"https://www.filmsite.org/images/top-100.jpg",
"https://www.filmsite.org/posters/citizenkane5.jpg",
"https://www.filmsite.org/reddot.gif",
"https://www.filmsite.org/images/spacer.... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | https://www.filmsite.org/citi.html | Background
The fresh, sophisticated, and classic masterpiece, Citizen Kane (1941), is probably the world's most famous and highly-rated film, with its many remarkable scenes and performances, cinematic and narrative techniques and experimental innovations (in photography, editing, and sound). Its director, star, and producer were all the same genius individual - Orson Welles (in his film debut at age 25!), who collaborated with Herman J. Mankiewicz on the script (and also with an uncredited John Houseman), and with Gregg Toland as his talented cinematographer. [The amount of each person's contributions to the screenplay has been the subject of great debate over many decades.] Toland's camera work on Karl Freund's expressionistic horror film Mad Love (1935) exerted a profound influence on this film.
The film, budgeted at $800,000, received unanimous critical praise even at the time of its release, although it was not a commercial success (partly due to its limited distribution and delayed release by RKO due to pressure exerted by famous megalomaniac publisher W.R. Hearst) - until it was re-released after World War II, found well-deserved (but delayed) recognition in Europe, and then played on television.
The film engendered controversy (and efforts at ruthless suppression in early 1941 through intimidation, blackmail, newspaper smears, discrediting and FBI investigations) before it premiered in New York City on May 1, 1941, because it appeared to fictionalize and caricaturize certain events and individuals in the life of William Randolph Hearst - a powerful newspaper magnate and publisher. The film was accused of drawing remarkable, unflattering, and uncomplimentary parallels (especially in regards to the Susan Alexander Kane character) to real-life.
The notorious battle was detailed in Thomas Lennon's and Michael Epstein's Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1996), and it was retold in HBO's cable-TV film RKO 281 (1999) (the film's title refers to the project numbering for the film by the studio, before the film was formally titled).
The gossip columnist Louella Parsons persuaded her newspaper boss, media mogul William Randolph Hearst that he was being slandered by RKO and Orson Welles' film ("a repulsive biography") when it was first previewed, so the Hearst-owned newspapers (and other media outlets) pressured theatres to boycott the film and also threatened libel lawsuits. Hearst also ordered his publications to completely ignore the film, and not accept advertising for other RKO projects.
However, the title character Charles Foster Kane is mostly a composite of any number of powerful, colorful, and influential American individualists and financial barons in the early 20th century (e.g., Time Magazine's founder and mogul Henry Luce, Chicago newspaper head Harold McCormick, and other magnates of the time). By contrast, the real-life Hearst was born into wealth, whereas Kane was of humble birth - the son of poor boarding-house proprietors. And Kane also was separated from both his mother and his mistress, unlike Hearst.
Similarities (and Some Differences) Between Kane and Hearst Charles Foster Kane William Randolph Hearst
Fictional character
Similarities with Jules Brulatour, millionaire head of distribution for Eastman Kodak and co-founder of Universal Pictures
New York Inquirer San Francisco Examiner, New York Journal Multi-millionaire newspaper publisher, and wielder of public opinion, known as "Kubla Khan" ("In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree - - legendary was the Xanadu where Kubla Khan decreed his stately pleasure dome") Same kind of press lord, "yellow journalist," and influential political figure Political aspirant to Presidency by campaigning as independent candidate for New York State's Governor, and by marrying the President's niece, Emily Monroe Norton. Kane was "twice married, twice divorced. First to a president's niece, Emily Norton, who left him in 1916." Political aspirant to Presidency by becoming New York State's Governor Created an extravagant, palatial Florida mansion, Xanadu ("Florida's Xanadu, world's largest private pleasure ground. Here, on the deserts of the Gulf Coast, a private mountain was commissioned and successfully built. One hundred thousand trees, twenty thousand tons of marble are the ingredients of Xanadu's mountain.... Since the pyramids, Xanadu is the costliest monument a man has built to himself...the still-unfinished Xanadu. Cost? No man can say") "The Hearst Castle" on "Hearst Ranch" land located at San Simeon, California in the central part of the state. An architectural landmark built between 1919 and 1947 for Hearst by his architect Julia Morgan. The site of Hearst Castle was used for Hearst family's camping vacations during Hearst's youth. Kane - an avid collector of a vast number of art objects ("Contents of Xanadu's palace: paintings, pictures, statues, the very stones of many another palace. A collection of everything. So big it can never be catalogued or appraised. Enough for ten museums - the loot of the world"), kept in his home (and packed away at film's end) Hearst - known as an obsessive collector or accumulator of items from around the world - he amassed numerous art objects, antiques, and design elements Souring affair/marriage with talentless 'singer' Susan Alexander (the Hays Code wouldn't permit extra-marital affair)
(Difference: Susan Alexander suffers humiliating failure as opera singer, attempts suicide, separates from Kane) Hearst had a beloved mistress - young, and successful silent film actress Marion Davies, causing Hearst to separate from his wife Millicent Hearst and their five sons by 1925.
(Difference: No breakdown in Davies' unmarried relationship with Hearst)
There were many similarities between Polish mistress/wife Ganna Walska of Chicago heir Harold Fowler McCormick (her fourth husband) who bought expensive voice lessons for her (although she was only mediocre in talent), promoted her lackluster career, and lavishly supported her for the lead role in the production of Zaza at the Chicago Opera in 1920.
Kane bought Susan an opera house ("For wife two, one-time opera singing Susan Alexander, Kane built Chicago's Municipal Opera House. Cost: $3 million dollars")
Although Susan said that her ambition was to be a singer, this career goal was mostly her mother's idea
Excessive patronage of Davies - Hearst bought Cosmopolitan Pictures - a film studio - to promote Davies' stardom as a serious actress, although she was better as a comedienne.
There were some similarities between Chicago Utilities tycoon and business magnate Samuel Insull who financed the construction of the Chicago Civic Opera House in 1929. An urban legend existed that Insull built the opera house for his much younger wife Gladys (a Broadway actress), who had not been hired by New York's Metropolitan Opera. It was true however, that he personally selected the opera and its cast for its opening performance.
Kane's fortune came from his mother Mary Kane and formed the basis of his growing empire: ("An empire through which for fifty years flowed in an unending stream the wealth of the earth's third richest gold mine....Famed in American legend is the origin of the Kane fortune, how to boarding house keeper Mary Kane by a defaulting boarder in 1868 was left the supposedly worthless deed to an abandoned mine shaft - the Colorado Lode") Hearst was the son of George Hearst, a gold-mining millionaire who was known for developing and expanding the Homestake Mine in the late 1870s in the Black Hills of South Dakota, as well as many other mining investments. Character of Walter Parks Thatcher Similarities with financier J.P. Morgan Character of Boss James 'Jim' W. Gettys Similarities with Tammany Hall (NYC) Boss Charles F. Murphy
[Footnote: In early March of 2012, California's Hearst Castle hosted a screening of Orson Welles' Citizen Kane (1941), 71 years after its original release. It was part of the San Luis Obispo International Film Festival. One of Hollywood's most famous behind-the-scenes battles occurred over the making of the film, when William Randolph Hearst banned coverage of the film in his newspapers, and tried to curtail its success. He accused the film of wrongly portraying him as a ruthless, publishing tycoon who died alone in the castle. Steve Hearst, VP of the Hearst Corporation, who allowed the screening, believed that it would highlight the fictional elements in the movie, and "correct the record." Proceeds from the screening raised money for upkeep of the estate's extensive art collection.]
Welles' film was the recipient of nine Oscar nominations with only one win - Best Original Screenplay (Mankiewicz and Welles). The other eight nominations included Best Picture (Orson Welles, producer), Best Actor and Best Director (Welles), Best B/W Cinematography (Toland), Best Art Direction (Perry Ferguson and Van Nest Polglase), Best Sound Recording (John Aalberg), Best Dramatic Picture Score (Bernard Herrmann with his first brilliant musical score), and Best Film Editing (Robert Wise). With his four Academy Awards nominations, Welles became the first individual to receive simultaneous nominations in those four categories. The less-lauded John Ford picture How Green Was My Valley (1941) won the Best Picture honor. There were at least two reasons for the film not winning Best Picture or any other major awards - (1) the predictable backlash from the Hearst media empire for Welles' passion project that had already been derided with a 'smear' campaign, and (2) the intense dislike for the cocky, acknowledged genius and 25 year-old director and producer Orson Welles who was considered a Hollywood outsider.
Many of the performers from Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre group made their screen debuts in the film, among them Joseph Cotten (Kane's oldest and best friend, and his newspaper's drama critic), Dorothy Comingore (Kane's second wife), Ruth Warrick (Kane's first wife), Ray Collins (Kane's political opponent), Agnes Moorehead (Kane's mother), Everett Sloane (Kane's devoted and loyal employee and business manager), Erskine Sanford (the newspaper's editor-in-chief), Paul Stewart (Kane's butler), George Couloris (Kane's legal guardian and bank manager), and William Alland (the chief investigative reporter).
More importantly, the innovative, bold film is an acknowledged milestone in the development of cinematic technique, although it 'shared' some of its techniques from Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940) and other earlier films. It uses film as an art form to energetically communicate and display a non-static view of life. Its components brought together the following aspects:
use of a subjective camera
unconventional lighting, including chiaroscuro, backlighting and high-contrast lighting, prefiguring the darkness and low-key lighting of future film noirs
inventive use of shadows and strange camera angles, following in the tradition of German Expressionists
deep-focus shots with incredible depth-of field and focus from extreme foreground to extreme background (also found in Toland's earlier work in Dead End (1937), John Ford's The Long Voyage Home (1940), and Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940)) that emphasize mise-en-scene; also in-camera matte shots
low-angled shots revealing ceilings in sets (a technique possibly borrowed from John Ford's Stagecoach (1939) which Welles screened numerous times)
sparse use of revealing facial close-ups
elaborate camera movements
over-lapping, talk-over dialogue (exhibited earlier in Howard Hawks' His Girl Friday (1940)) and layered sound
the sound technique termed "lightning-mix" in which a complex montage sequence is linked by related sounds
a cast of characters that ages throughout the film
flashbacks, flashforwards and non-linear story-telling (used in earlier films, including another rags-to-riches tale starring Spencer Tracy titled The Power and the Glory (1933) with a screenplay by Preston Sturges, and RKO's A Man to Remember (1938) from director Garson Kanin and screenwriter Dalton Trumbo)
the frequent use of transitionary dissolves or curtain wipes, as in the scene in which the camera ascended in the opera house into the rafters to show the workmen's disapproval of Mrs. Kane's operatic performance; also the famous 'breakfast' montage scene illustrating the disintegration of Kane's marriage in a brief time
long, uninterrupted shots or lengthy takes of sequences
Its complex and pessimistic theme of a spiritually-failed man is told from several, unreliable perspectives and points-of-view (also metaphorically communicated by the jigsaw puzzle) by several different characters (the associates and friends of the deceased) - providing a sometimes contradictory, non-sequential, and enigmatic portrait. The film tells the thought-provoking, tragic epic story of a 'rags-to-riches' child who inherited a fortune, was taken away from his humble surroundings and his father and mother, was raised by a banker, and became a fabulously wealthy, arrogant, and energetic newspaperman. He made his reputation as the generous, idealistic champion of the underprivileged, and set his egotistical mind on a political career, until those political dreams were shattered after the revelation of an ill-advised 'love-nest' affair with a singer. Kane's life was corrupted and ultimately self-destructed by a lust to fulfill the American dream of success, fame, wealth, power and immortality. After two failed marriages and a transformation into a morose, grotesque, and tyrannical monster, his final days were spent alone, morose, and unhappy before his death in a reclusive refuge of his own making - an ominous castle filled with innumerable possessions to compensate for his life's emptiness.
The discovery and revelation of the mystery of the life of the multi-millionaire publishing tycoon is determined through a reporter's search for the meaning of his single, cryptic dying word: "Rosebud" - in part, the film's plot enabling device - or McGuffin (MacGuffin). However, no-one was present to hear him utter the elusive last word. The reporter looks for clues to the word's identity by researching the newspaper publisher's life, through interviews with several of Kane's former friends and colleagues. Was it a favorite pet or nickname of a lost love? Or the name of a racehorse? At film's end, the identity of "Rosebud" is revealed, but only to the film audience. [One source, Gore Vidal - a close friend of Hearst, wildly claimed in 1989 in a short memoir in the New York Review of Books that "Rosebud" was a euphemism for the most intimate part of his long-time mistress Marion Davies' female anatomy.]
And finally, the film's title has often been copied or mirrored, as a template for the titles of other biopics or documentaries about a figure often striving for socio-political recognition, as in the following films:
Citizen Saint (1947) about modern miracle worker Mother Frances Cabrini
Damn Citizen (1958) about a Louisiana state politician
Citizen Tania (1989) - about heiress Patty Hearst's abduction by the Symbionese Liberation Army
the HBO made-for-TV Citizen Cohn (1992) - about Senator Joseph McCarthy's loathsome lawyer Roy Cohn (James Woods) of the late 40s and 50s in the HUAC
Citizen Langlois (1995, Fr.) about pioneering film archivist Henri Langlois of the Cinematheque Francaise - with some footage from the 1941 film
Oliver Stone's epic biography Nixon (1995) could have been titled Citizen Nixon -- it's a modern-day 'Citizen Kane' story about another tragic figure, filmed in a disjointed, non-linear or non-chronological fashion (with unexpected flashbacks) and the use of newsreel footage as Welles did, and including an argument between Nixon and his wife at the dinner table - resembling the famed breakfast table scene in Citizen Kane; the famous 18 1/2 minute gap would serve as the enigmatic 'Rosebud'
director Alexander Payne's debut film and political satire Citizen Ruth (1996) about Ruth Stoops (Laura Dern) - a pregnant woman caught as a pawn in the middle of the abortion rights issue
Citizen James (2000) about a young Bronx filmmaker (writer/director/star Doug E. Doug)
the TV series Citizen Baines (2001) about an ex-politician (James Cromwell) dealing with three grown daughters
the documentary Citizen King (2004) - about Martin Luther King, Jr. originally made for PBS' American Experience series
Plot Synopsis
The intriguing opening (a bookend to the film's closing prologue) is filled with hypnotic lap dissolves and camera movements from one sinister, mysterious image to the next, searching closer and closer and moving in. [The film's investigative opening, with the camera approaching closer and closer, may have been influenced by the beginning of Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940). Both films open and close on a matted image of a mansion in the distance.] The film's first sight is a "No Trespassing" sign hanging on a giant gate in the night's foggy mist, illuminated by the moonlight. The camera pans up the chain-link mesh gate that dissolves and changes into images of great iron flowers or oak leaves on the heavy gate. On the crest of the gate is a single, silhouetted, wrought-iron "K" initial [for Kane]. The prohibitive gate surrounds a distant, forbidding-looking castle with towers. The fairy-tale castle is situated on a man-made mountain - it is obviously the estate of a wealthy man. [The exterior of the castle resembles the one in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).]
In a succession of views, the subjective and curious camera, acting omnisciently as it approaches toward the castle, violates the "No Trespassing" sign by entering the neglected grounds. In the private world of the castle grounds, zoo pens have been designed for exotic animals. Spider monkeys sit above a sign on one of the cages marked 'Bengal Tiger.' The prows of two empty gondolas are tied to a wooden wharf on a private lake, and the castle is reflected in the water. A statue of the Egyptian cat god stands before a bridge with a raised drawbridge/portcullis over a moat. A deserted green from the large golf course is marked with a sign needing repair (No. 16, 365 yards, Par 4). In the distance, a single, postage stamp-sized window of the castle is lit, always seen at approximately the same place in each frame. Palm trees surround a crumbling gate on the abandoned, cluttered grounds. The castle appears in a closer, medium shot. During an even closer shot of the window, the light within the window suddenly goes out. From an angle inside the turret room facing out of the enormous window, a silhouetted figure can be seen lying stiffly on a bed in the low-lit room.
The scene shifts to swirling snowflakes that fill the entire screen - here's another mysterious object that demands probing. The flakes surround a snow-covered house with snowmen around it, and in a quick pull-back, we realize it is actually a wintery scene inside a crystal glass globe or ball-paperweight in the grasping hand of an old man. [First Appearance of Glass Ball in Film] Symbolically, the individual's hand is holding the past's memories - a recollection of childhood life in a log cabin. [Psychoanalytically, the glass ball represents the mother's womb. Later in the film, it also is learned that the globe, associated with Susan, represents his first and only innocent love.]
The film's famous, first murmured, echoed word is heard uttered by huge, mustached rubbery lips that fill the screen:
R-o-s-e-b-u-d!
[In reality, no one would have heard Kane's last utterance - in this scene, he is alone when he dies, although later in the film, Raymond the butler states that he heard the last word - a statement not completely reliable. It has been speculated that everything in the film was the dying man's dream -- and the burning of Rosebud in the film's climax was Kane's last conscious thought before death.] An old man has pronounced his last dying word as the snowstorm globe is released from his grip and rolls from his relaxed hand. The glass ball bounces down two carpeted steps and shatters into tiny pieces on the marble floor. [The film's flashbacks reveal that the shattering of the glass ball is indicative of broken love.] A door opens and a white-uniformed nurse appears on screen, refracted and distorted through a curve of a sliver of shattered glass fragment from the broken globe. In a dark silhouette, she folds his arms over his chest, and then covers him with a sheet. The next view is again the lit window viewed from inside. A dissolve fades to darkness.
In an abrupt cut from his private sanctuary, a row of flags is a backdrop for a dramatic, news-digest segment of News on the March! [a simulation/parody of the actual "March of Time" series produced by Time, Inc. and its founder Henry Luce beginning in the mid-30s]. The biopic film-in-a-film is a fact-filled, authoritative newsreel or documentary that briefly covers the chronological highlights of the public life of the deceased man. The faux newsreel provides a detailed, beautifully-edited, narrative-style outline and synopsis of Kane's public life, appearing authentically scratched, grainy and archival in some segments. The structure of the narrative in the newsreel is as follows:
Information about Xanadu and its grandeur
Kane's career (personal, political, and financial) - interwoven
Thatcher's confrontation with Kane for the first time in the snow
Chronological Account of Kane's life
The test screening of the first episode of the series is titled on the first panel, soon followed by the words of a portentous, paternalistic, self-important narrator:
Obituary: Xanadu's Landlord
An explanatory title card with the words of Coleridge's poem is imposed over views of Xanadu (actually a series of shots of San Simeon). Kane and his Xanadu is compared to the legendary Kubla Khan:
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree - -
Narrator of Newsreel: Legendary was the Xanadu where Kubla Khan decreed his stately pleasure dome. Today, almost as legendary is Florida's Xanadu, world's largest private [views of people lounge around Xanadu and its pool] pleasure ground. Here, on the deserts of the Gulf Coast [the camera views the coastline], a private mountain was commissioned and successfully built. [Workmen are shown building the tremendous castle] One hundred thousand trees, twenty thousand tons of marble are the ingredients of Xanadu's mountain. Contents of Xanadu's palace: [crates with statues and other objects are brought into Xanadu] paintings, pictures, statues, the very stones of many another palace - a collection of everything so big it can never be catalogued or appraised, enough for ten museums - the loot of the world. [views of endless numbers of crates arriving] Xanadu's livestock: [views of horses, giraffes, rare birds, a large octopus, an elephant, donkeys, etc.] the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, the beast of the field and jungle. Two of each, the biggest private zoo since Noah. Like the pharaohs, Xanadu's landlord leaves many stones to mark his grave. Since the pyramids, Xanadu is the costliest monument a man has built to himself.
Another explanatory title card:
In Xanadu last week was held 1941's biggest strangest funeral.
Kane's coffin emerges from Xanadu as it is borne by coffin-bearers.
Narrator: Here in Xanadu last week, Xanadu's landlord was laid to rest, a potent figure of our century, America's Kubla Khan - Charles Foster Kane.
The newspaper headline of the New York Daily Inquirer appears with a picture of Kane:
CHARLES FOSTER KANE DIES AFTER LIFETIME OF SERVICE
Entire Nation Mourns Great Publisher as Outstanding American
The paper is removed and other headlines, set in different type and styles from around the nation and world, and with conflicting opinions about Kane, are revealed, announcing his death:
The Daily Chronicle: [note the negative headlines from the Inquirer's main business competitor]
C. F. Kane Dies at Xanadu Estate
Editor's Stormy Career Comes to an End
Death of Publisher Finds Few Who Will Mourn for Him
The Chicago Globe:
DEATH CALLS PUBLISHER CHARLES KANE
Policies Swayed World
Stormy Career Ends for "U.S. Fascist No. 1"
The Minneapolis Record Herald:
KANE, SPONSOR OF DEMOCRACY, DIES
Publisher Gave Life to Nation's Service during Long Career
The San Francisco...
DEATH FINALLY COMES...
The Detroit Star:
Kane, Leader of News World, Called By Death at Xanadu
Was Master of Destiny
The El Paso Journal:
END COMES FOR CHARLES FOSTER KANE
Editor Who Instigated "War for Profit" Is Beaten by Death
France's Le Matin:
Mort du grand Editeur C.F. Kane
Spain's El Correspendencia:
El Sr. Kane Se Murio!
Other foreign language newspapers (Russian and Japanese) also announce his death:
Ezhednevnaya Gazeta (Daily Newspaper)
Bednota ("The Impoverished")
S.F. Kan Velichaishij (C. F. Kane, the greatest)
Izdatel' Umer (publisher died)
Izdatel' Umer v Svoyei Usad'be ("Publisher died in his mansion")
The castle's owner is Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), publisher of the New York Inquirer:
Another title card:
To forty-four million U.S. news buyers, more newsworthy than the names in his own headlines, was Kane himself, greatest newspaper tycoon of this or any other generation.
Narrator: Its humble beginnings in this ramshackle building, a dying daily. [Views of the old Inquirer Building] Kane's empire in its glory [A picture of a US map shows circles widening out over it] held dominion over 37 newspapers, two syndicates, a radio network, an empire upon an empire. The first of grocery stores, paper mills, apartment buildings, factories, forests, ocean liners, [a sign reads COLORADO LODE MINE CO.] an empire through which for fifty years flowed in an unending stream the wealth of the earth's third richest gold mine. [Piles of gold bullion are stacked up and a highway sign reads, COLORADO STATE LINE] Famed in American legend [Kane Jr. is pictured with his mother in a framed portrait] is the origin of the Kane fortune, how to boarding house keeper Mary Kane [a view of Kane's old home, Mrs. Kane's Boarding House] by a defaulting boarder in 1868 was left the supposedly worthless deed to an abandoned mine shaft - the Colorado Lode. [A large bucket tilts, pouring molten ore into a mold] Fifty-seven years later, [A view of the Washington DC Capitol Building] before a Congressional investigation, Walter P. Thatcher, grand old man of Wall Street, for years chief target of Kane papers' attacks on trusts, recalls a journey he made as a youth.
In front of a Congressional investigating committee, Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris) recalls his journey in 1870 to Mrs. Kane's boarding house in Colorado, when he was asked to raise the young boy.
My firm had been appointed trustee by Mrs. Kane for a large fortune which she had recently acquired. It was her wish that I should take charge of this boy, this Charles Foster Kane.
Thatcher refuses to answer a Congressman's question (accompanied with laughter and confusion) about whether the boy personally attacked him after striking him in the stomach with a sled. Thatcher prefers to read a prepared statement of his opinion of Kane, and then refuses to answer any other questions:
Mr. Charles Foster Kane, in every essence of his social beliefs, and by the dangerous manner in which he has persistently attacked the American traditions of private property, initiative, and opportunity for advancement, is in fact, nothing more or less than a Communist!
That same month in New York's Union Square, where a crowd is urged to boycott Kane papers, an opinionated politician speaks:
The words of Charles Foster Kane are a menace to every working man in this land. He is today what he has always been - and always will be - a Fascist!
Narrator: And still, another opinion.
Kane orates silently into a radio microphone in front of a congratulatory, applauding crowd. A title card appears, a quote from Kane himself:
I am, have been, and will be only one thing - an American.
Another title card:
1895 to 1941
All of these years he covered, many of these he was.
Narrator: Kane urged his country's entry into one war [1898 - The Spanish-American War] - opposed participation in another [1919 - The Great War - an image of a cemetery with rows of white crosses] - swung the election to one American President at least [Kane is pictured on the platform of a train with Teddy Roosevelt] - spoke for millions of Americans, was hated by as many more. [an effigy, a caricature of Kane, is burned by a crowd] For forty years, appeared in Kane newsprint no public issue on which Kane papers took no stand, [Kane again appears with Roosevelt] no public man whom Kane himself did not support or denounce - often support [Kane is pictured with Hitler on a balcony], then denounce. [Kane never denounced - and then later supported any of his closest friends who argued with him, including his two wives, Leland and Thatcher. Because he held grudges, he couldn't easily find reconciliation.]
A title card:
Few private lives were more public.
Narrator: Twice married, twice divorced. [Kane and first wife Emily are dressed in wedding clothes, walking outside the White House] First to a president's niece, Emily Norton, who left him in 1916. [A newspaper article reads: "Family Greets Kane After Victory Speech" - his wife and young son are pictured with him outside Madison Square Garden] Died 1918 in a motor accident with their son. Sixteen years after his first marriage, two weeks after his first divorce, [At the Trenton Town Hall, newspaper reporters and photographers crowd around when Kane comes out with Susan] Kane married Susan Alexander, singer at the Town Hall in Trenton, New Jersey. [A poster from one of Susan's performances: "Lyric Theatre, On Stage, Suzan Alexander, Coming Thursday"] For Wife Two, one-time opera singing Susan Alexander, Kane built Chicago's Municipal Opera House. [The cover of an opera program: "Chicago Municipal Opera House presents Susan Alexander in Salammbo, Gala Opening" and a drawing of the Opera House] Cost: $3 million dollars. Conceived for Susan Alexander Kane, half finished before she divorced him, the still-unfinished Xanadu. Cost: No man can say.
A title card:
In politics - always a bridesmaid, never a bride.
Narrator: Kane, molder of mass opinion though he was, in all his life was never granted elective office by the voters of his country. But Kane papers were once strong indeed, [a newspaper machine rolls newspapers through, EXTRA papers move upward] and once the prize seemed almost his. In 1916, as independent candidate for governor, [a view of a banner, KANE for GOVERNOR] the best elements of the state behind him, the White House seemingly the next easy step in a lightning political career, then suddenly, less than one week before election - defeat!...
An iris opens on the Daily Chronicle screaming the headline [note the quotation marks on "Singer" and "Songbird," later described by an interviewee as a bone of contention for Kane]:
CANDIDATE KANE CAUGHT IN LOVE NEST WITH 'SINGER'
The Highly Moral Mr. Kane and his Tame "Songbird"
Entrapped by Wife as Love Pirate, Kane Refuses to Quit Race
...Shameful. Ignominious. Defeat that set back for twenty years the cause of reform in the U.S., [heart-shaped framed pictures of Kane and Susan are pictured in the newspaper] forever cancelled political chances for Charles Foster Kane. [A sign on a gate reads: FACTORY CLOSED, NO TRESPASSING] [1929] [Another sign reads: CLOSED] [The signs repeat the theme of closure/death from the film's opening shot.] Then, in the first year of the Great Depression, a Kane paper closes [On the St. Louis Daily Inquirer building hangs a CLOSED sign]. For Kane in four short years: collapse. [On a map of the US, the circles diminish, leaving only a few] Eleven Kane papers merged, more sold, scrapped.
A title card:
But America Still Reads Kane Newspapers and Kane Himself Was Always News.
In 1935, returning from Europe by ship, Kane is asked by the press (the reporter was an uncredited cameo role for cinematographer Gregg Toland) on arrival in New York harbor, about contemporary politics, and the "chances for war in Europe":
Reporter: Isn't that correct?
Kane: Don't believe everything you hear on the radio. [A sly reference to Welles' own infamous 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worlds that sent listeners into a panic.] Read the 'Inquirer'!
Reporter: How did you find business conditions in Europe?
Kane: How did I find business conditions in Europe, Mr. Bones? With great difficulty. (He laughs heartily)
Reporter: You glad to be back, Mr. Kane?
Kane: I'm always glad to be back, young man. I'm an American. Always been an American. (Sharply) Anything else? When I was a reporter, we asked them quicker than that. Come on, young fella.
Reporter: What do you think of the chances for war in Europe?
Kane (smugly): I've talked with the responsible leaders of the Great Powers - England, France, Germany, and Italy - they're too intelligent to embark on a project which would mean the end of civilization as we now know it. You can take my word for it. There'll be no war.
In the next newsreel clip, Kane is seen at a cornerstone ceremony, clumsily dropping mortar on himself from a trowel, and then brushing the dirt off his coat. At the center of the ceremony as he lays a cornerstone, but without his customary power, he is surrounded by workmen swinging hooks and cables around him. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 4 | https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | en | Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia | [
"https://simple.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://simple.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://simple.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-simple.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Citi... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2005-12-30T15:06:10+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | Citizen KaneDirected byOrson WellesWritten byOrson Welles
Herman J. MankiewiczProduced byOrson Welles
Richard Baer (associate - uncredited)StarringOrson Welles
Joseph Cotten
Ruth Warrick
Everett Sloane
George Coulouris
Ray Collins
Agnes Moorehead
Production
companies
Distributed byMetro-Goldwyn-Mayer (theatrical)
Paramount Pictures (1991 re-release)
Warner Bros. (DVD)
Release date
May 1, 1941
Running time
119CountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglish Budget$686,033 (estimated)
Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama movie starring Orson Welles in his first full-length movie. There are rumors that its story is based on the life of the famous businessmen William Randolph Hearst, Howard Hughes, and Samuel Insull. Welles said that his character, Kane, was based on more than one famous person. In F for Fake (1974), he said that Kane was going to be based on Hughes but that Welles became inspired by Hearst.
Welles worked closely with his cinematographer, Gregg Toland, who was in charge of the camera and the lights. Together, they worked on a new style, "deep focus." Usually, if something close to the camera is in focus, everything that is far away is out of focus. In deep focus, every object is in focus at the same time.
Its working title, before the movie was finished, was RKO 281.
Many have called Citizen Kane the best movie of all time. In 1998, it was number one on the American Film Institute's list of 100 Years... 100 Movies.
It is in some ways is like The Power and the Glory (1933).
The last living crew member was director Robert Wise. Also known for making The Sound of Music (1965), he died on September 14, 2005. | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 25 | http://mrsmithsibwebsite.weebly.com/ib-film-blogs/classic-films-and-citizen-kane | en | Classic Films and Citizen Kane | http://cdn2.editmysite.com/images/site/footer/og-image-placeholder-blank.png | http://cdn2.editmysite.com/images/site/footer/og-image-placeholder-blank.png | [
"http://cdn2.editmysite.com/images/old/bg_feed.gif",
"http://cdn2.editmysite.com/images/site/footer/footer-toast-published-image-1.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Re-read your list of elements a classic film should have. After watching Citizen Kane discuss what elements it had. What elements did Citizen Kane not have? Due Friday Octo | en | Pan American School of Bahia IB Home Page | http://mrsmithsibwebsite.weebly.com/1/post/2012/10/classic-films-and-citizen-kane.html | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 70 | https://www.slashfilm.com/762908/the-john-ford-western-that-inspired-citizen-kane/ | en | The John Ford Western That Inspired Citizen Kane | [
"https://www.slashfilm.com/img/slashfilm-logo.svg",
"https://www.slashfilm.com/img/slashfilm-logo.svg",
"https://www.slashfilm.com/img/slashfilm-icon.svg",
"https://www.slashfilm.com/img/gallery/the-john-ford-western-that-inspired-citizen-kane/intro-1644444434.jpg",
"https://www.slashfilm.com/img/gallery/th... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Lee Adams"
] | 2022-02-09T22:13:07+00:00 | Well, I'm sorry but I'm not interested in gold mines, oil wells, shipping, or real estate. What would I like to have been? Everything you hate. | en | SlashFilm | https://www.slashfilm.com/762908/the-john-ford-western-that-inspired-citizen-kane/ | It is nighttime on the periphery of a sprawling estate; sinister music accompanies the camera as it scrolls up over many yards of fence, chain link giving way to curlicues of wrought iron, punctuated with ominous cautions to prying eyes: "Warning Keep Out" and "Trespassers Will Be Shot," before arriving at a paper note reading "Free Kittens, Inquire Within."
We are, of course, talking about the opening to "Rosebud," the episode-length parody of "Citizen Kane" in "The Simpsons." Orson Welles' influential and much-referenced masterpiece needs little introduction, one of those films where most people know the iconography, even if they haven't seen the movie itself.
The famous opening scene that "The Simpsons" riffs on so wonderfully is one of the greatest ever committed to film, introducing us to Xanadu, the daunting edifice that Charles Foster Kane calls home. When I took film studies at university, we spent a lot of time on "Kane," picking through its treasure trove of cinematic wonders. I came to regard Xanadu as a metaphor for the film — a humbling monument to Welles' immense talent which he never quite managed to better or escape.
"Citizen Kane" inspires awe and casts a Xanadu-like shadow over cinema, even if it is a difficult film to actually love. Personally, I wholeheartedly adore "Casablanca," while I can only admit to cooing with admiration over "Kane." That is reflected in public "Best Films of All Time" lists; on IMDb's Top 250, it lags far behind "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Forrest Gump," while critics' polls usually place it somewhere near the top.
For the longest time, it occupied the top spot on Sight and Sound's highfalutin Top 250, before it was knocked off by Hitchcock's "Vertigo." That's something that would no doubt send Welles into a fit if he was alive to see it; the director famously hated Hitchcock's work, claiming he made films that were "all lit like television shows" (via Open Culture). Welles developed a reputation for hostility towards his peers during his career, pulling no punches with his withering criticism on everyone from Michelangelo Antonioni (whose films were "perfect backgrounds for fashion models") to John Landis ("Kill him.")
Yet for all Welles' innovation, virtuosity, and innate talent, he himself was heavily influenced by an earlier film as he prepared to make his 1941 masterpiece.
The story opens with an old man on his deathbed. He whispers "Rosebud," a snowglobe slips from his grasp and shatters on the floor, and his nurse enters. He is dead. A strident newsreel obituary reveals that the deceased is Charles Foster Kane, the immensely wealthy and influential newspaper magnate and industrialist, who went from humble beginnings at a failing New York tabloid to building a vast media empire. And that was just for starters.
As the story of Kane's last word emerges, a reporter is sent to unravel the mystery of who, or what, Rosebud was. He conducts interviews with many of Kane's former friends, wives, associates, and rivals, uncovering many aspects of the man's life, from his adoption as a child by a wealthy banker named Thatcher to his unhappy, controlling marriage to a talentless opera singer.
The true meaning of Rosebud remains an enigma to the reporter, who gives up on his quest. We return to Xanadu, where Kane's staff are boxing up or destroying his vast collection of belongings. One of the items thrown on the fire is an old sled, which we saw Kane riding as a child just before Thatcher took him away. As the toy is consumed by flames, we see one word painted on it: "Rosebud."
"Citizen Kane" is revered for the astonishing array of filmmaking on display; Welles regarded Hollywood as "the biggest electric train set a boy ever had" (via The Atlantic). When it came to making his audacious directorial debut, he reveled in laying out every inch of track he could lay his hands on, taking a crash course in cinema and using every technique that caught his eye. In that sense, he was a little like the Tarantino of his day, pilfering things from earlier movies and mashing them together in a way that felt wholly unique.
There is the non-linear narrative that explores the mystery of Kane's final word from multiple perspectives, and the deep focus photography that encourages us to search for clues in every inch of the frame. There are the brilliant uses of montage, noirish lighting borrowed from German Expressionism, and technical sleight of hand, as in the bravura moment where the camera seemingly swoops through a neon sign and a pane of rain-lashed glass. My personal favorite is the masterful use of dissolve in the opening scene as we traverse the ghostly Xanadu estate with the light of Kane's bedroom window always remaining in the same place, even when reflected in an abandoned boating lake.
Few directors ever get close to this level of cinematic sophistication in their entire careers, and Welles managed it at the ripe old age of 25.
The circumstances leading to Welles making "Citizen Kane" are almost as remarkable as the film itself. He first won plaudits on Broadway for his daring all African-American adaptation of "Macbeth," setting the Bard's famous tragedy in the Caribbean. He was just 20 years old. He established the Mercury Theater where he first teamed up with actor Joseph Cotten, who would play an important role in many of his feature films, including "Kane." They would also star together in Carol Reed's noir masterpiece, "The Third Man."
He then took his repertory company to the airwaves where he staged one of his biggest stunts, the infamous adaptation of "The War of the Worlds," carefully calculated to trick listeners into thinking there was a real Martian invasion. Some fell for it and got scared, although reports of mass panic were overblown and subsequently became part of the Welles legend as a trickster and showman.
That notoriety took Welles to Hollywood where he was given unprecedented artistic freedom over "Citizen Kane," which angered William Randolph Hearst, the powerful newspaper magnate whose life story it was loosely based on. After conquering the stage and radio, Welles wasn't about to play it safe when RKO gave him a substantial budget and final cut on his first motion picture. Giving many of his Mercury Theater troupe their film debuts, he also brought on board screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who had a personal beef with Hearst. With his wunderkind reputation for fearlessness and arrogance, Welles only went on to revolutionize modern American cinema and make one of the greatest films of all time.
According to his biographer, actor Simon Callow, Welles watched John Ford's "Stagecoach" up to 40 times before making "Kane." (via BBC):
"After dinner every night for about a month, I'd run Stagecoach, often with some different technician or department head from the studio, and ask questions. 'How was this done?' 'Why was this done?' It was like going to school."
Roger Ebert talks about this in his "Great Movies" review of "Stagecoach," perhaps one of his most elegant and succinct arguments for the greatness of any one film in the series. It's almost as if he is influenced in his writing by the stylish economy of the film itself (via Roger Ebert):
"The two films are hardly similar. What did Welles learn from it? Perhaps most of all a lean editing style. Ford made certain through casting and dialog that the purpose of each scene was made clear, and then he lingered exactly long enough to make the point. Nothing feels superfluous. When he deliberately slows the flow ... we understand it as the calm before a storm."
"Stagecoach" is a movie that I only caught up with recently. I knew it was regarded as one of the greats, but I was never a fan of cowboys-and-Indians style westerns. As a lefty, I was also resistant to it thanks to the presence of John Wayne, with his reputation as an ultra-conservative bigot and commie-basher. Neither of those things should deter anyone, especially those with an interest in the history of cinema, from seeing it. It's a cracking movie. Sure, the Native Americans as depicted here may as well be a horde of zombies for all they are humanized, but Ford's direction is so slick and authoritative. While many films of its age feel a bit old and stagey, "Stagecoach" really rattles along, even though much of the running time is spent establishing its set of flawed-but-likable characters. By the time the Indians finally descend on the stagecoach in the thrilling final chase scene (including one of the most dangerous stunts you'll ever see), we're fully invested in these people and there are real stakes.
As for Wayne, I finally got why he was such a huge star. He had played in dozens of previous movies but this was his big breakthrough role, and he's magnificent. There is a simple, mythic quality to his heroism, and he also has some surprisingly tender moments with the film's now well-worn trope of the hooker-with-the-heart-of-gold. Despite my preconceptions based on the man's politics that are totally unsavory to me, I couldn't help rooting for the guy.
For all its massive influence over cinema, "Citizen Kane" was not a success when it was first released. Hearst waged war on the film, making sure his publications didn't run ads for it and turning Hollywood bigwigs like Louis B. Mayer against Welles (via History.com). As a result, it was a box office failure, despite favorable notices from many contemporary critics. Welles was booed at the Oscars, where "Kane" lost out on the Outstanding Motion Picture award to John Ford's "How Green Was My Valley,"' somewhat ironic given the veteran director's influence on Welles and his film.
In the fallout, Welles ended up becoming a contract director for RKO and losing creative control over his subsequent pictures, most notably "The Magnificent Ambersons," which was re-cut despite his protests. It was only in later years when "Kane" was re-released that it received re-evaluation and began its ascent to one of the most revered films ever made.
Ford, who had already helmed dozens of pictures since the early days of cinema before directing "Stagecoach," went on to make many more, earning his reputation as one of the great American filmmakers. During his career he directed over 140 movies, many in the western genre, collaborating with Wayne for some of their best films including "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" and "The Searchers." While nowadays he is most well-known for his work with the actor, he also made many other classics including "The Grapes of Wrath" with Henry Fonda and "My Darling Clementine" with James Stewart.
While on the face of it "Stagecoach" and "Citizen Kane" may not have a huge amount in common, the earlier film's influence on Welles is where these two landmark moments of American cinema intersect. If you have any interest in cinema and you haven't seen one or both of these movies, I recommend you get on it straight away! | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 86 | https://queenannenews.com/news/2014/mar/03/citizen-kane/ | en | Queen Anne & Magnolia News | [
"https://nevadanewsgroup.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/static-4/queenannenews/images/QAM_Logo.png",
"https://nevadanewsgroup.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/static-4/queenannenews/images/QAM_Logo.png",
"https://nevadanewsgroup.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/static-3/nevadaappeal/images/secure.webp"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Dr. Alex Kraft"
] | 2014-03-03T00:00:00 | null | This is a program note written for "The Cinema of Orson Welles," the Autumn 1971 film series of the University of Washington Office of Lectures & Concerts, and distributed at the October 5, 1971, showing of Welles' first feature film. -RTJ
Thirty years after its initial release, Citizen Kane may very well be the most talked-about movie in history. Its creator-star, Orson Welles, remains the sole American filmmaker of the early sound era whom virtually everybody is willing to consider an artist. In the early Sixties an international poll of 110 critics determined Kane as "the greatest film of all time" (there have been other polls and other results, to be sure). Last year the University of California Press produced the most ambitious survey yet of Welles' directorial career, Charles Higham's The Films of Orson Welles. This year Pauline Kael contributed a nearly booklength introduction (in two New Yorker installments) to the final version of the Kane screenplay, soon to be published; and Andrew Sarris answered her in four superb, longer-than-usual articles in The Village Voice. Peter Bogdanovich has another volume of conversations-in-excelsis ready to go, with Welles as subject (and financial partner in the enterprise); and Joseph McBride, whose various articles on Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, and Chimes at Midnight confirm his standing as the most sensitive of Welles scholars, will soon have a book out, too. There is even a textbook, Focus on Citizen Kane. Then there's the latest issue of Film Comment magazine devoted to detailed studies of Welles and two other "masters of mise-en-scène." And on and on it goes. Every week, in art theaters and campus auditoriums, new viewers make the acquaintance of Citizen Kane and feel, for a few moments or days, as if they've never seen a movie before. And old friends of Kane periodically revisit and feel as if they've never seen it before!
I have seen Citizen Kane for the twentysometh time(s) this week and I'm still pretty excited about the film. So I'd rather not go into the pre-production data on Welles' first feature, or compare the life of Charles Foster Kane to that of William Randolph Hearst, or worry what the picture has in common with Marx Brothers comedies or The Front Page, or make obligatory lists of the innovations supposed to be found in it, or talk about the tortuous processes by which the film was nearly suppressed and then niftily saved and then commercially sabotaged. Interesting and illuminating as such studies may be, they are other things and - in Higham and Kael specifically - they at worst distort and at best prove irrelevant to the experience that Citizen Kane the film is.
***
Many of Orson Welles' movies begin at night. Those that do not literally begin at night begin in some kind of dark void, partake of a timelessness, a sense of primal chaos, blackness before creation, darkness before the vital and mortal stab of light. Citizen Kane begins in utter darkness and silence. Then a chord of music shudders down under things and we begin to perceive abstract images: a sign warning NO TRESPASSING, several kinds of wire mesh, dark grillework of increasing complexity of pattern. These barriers slip before our eyes in funereal, ascending shots that elide into one another like semiliquids. Beyond them lies some backdrop, indistinct, out-of-focus, darkly silver and terrible with potentiality. Dissolve to a shot that establishes a more rationally coherent but still surreal landscape: a wrought-iron K silhouetted atop a gate; this at our left, and at the right a fairy-tale castle. The preeminent sense of ascension established in the fence shots gives way momentarily to a penetrating motion: not of a camera in motion but rather, of shots themselves, editorial logic in motion, as a series of precisely matched images samples the bizarre ground of this estate presided over by the castle, which maintains a territorial imperative over the same section of the frame in each shot. There is a light in one castle window, and as the dreamlike (and largely painted or miniature) views succeed one another, we become aware that we are still focused in a kind of ascent, drawing closer in each shot to that square of illumination. We are outside the windows now - and the light goes out. A moment's confusion and we see something again: the fold of curtain by the window, distinct against the lighter background. But now the curtain is on the other side of the screen: we are inside that now-darkened room, and the night exterior seems comparatively lighter. Closeup of a white object: a miniature house under a blanket of imitation snow. The camera snaps back: the house is enclosed in a glass ball in an aged hand, but its atmosphere of swirling snow now seems to drift over the whole room. Through this overlayer we see huge lips and hear them pronounced a word: "Rosebud..." The ball rolls out of the lifeless hand, bounces down some stairs, shatters. A very grainy image of a nurse appears on screen and is immediately refracted through a curve of the broken snow-globe. The corpse is covered. We look out at the lighter night again, and then darkness closes down once more.
The man, we quickly learn, is Charles Foster Kane and the estate is Xanadu. A newsreel reprise of the historical high points of his life follows the scene of his death. A reporter, Thompson, sets out to review Kane's life through his key associates, hoping to learn why one of the (once) most powerful men in the world died saying, "Rosebud" - he needs "an angle" for his short. The search for "Rosebud" becomes the means of and excuse for going over Kane's life again, including many events already summarized in the newsreel, impressionistic moments inflated to expressionistic degrees. But in the very first sequence Orson Welles has already established most of the key themes and motifs that will dominate the film.
In his book Movie Man David Thomson suggests that "The whole of Citizen Kane might be Kane's own dreamed recollections in the last moment before his death. The fact that the film takes the form of investigations carried out by a representative of a newsreel company could be interpreted as showing the degree to which Kane's own publicity has conditioned his attitude to himself." The author of Movie Man isn't insisting, just responding imaginatively to the quality of images and sounds the film has bounced off him. Neither do I think it is necessary to buy the dreamed-recollections theory, but I believe there is no way to discount that Kane or at least his alter ego is the narrative intelligence through whom we view the film, regardless of who the official "narrators" are. We are conspicuously taken into Xanadu at the beginning - the virtual identity of Kane and Xanadu is suggested by the shot of the K and the castle. When the light goes out in Kane's room, is it just a light going out a few moments before he dies, or does the light signal his death, our subsequent closeup look at the snow-globe constituting the first of many flashbacks within the move? When the nurse enters in such a grainy shot, does the graininess not represent a rejection of those facts of life - and of his life - that Kane could not dominate? At any rate she is immediately put in place, caught in the accidental prism of the broken globe - an effect that has been criticized as puerile, yet why, when it so vividly foreshadows the fragmentary refractions of Kane's life we are about to witness? An intense subjectivity is established in these opening shots that never lets go of the film, even at the end.
In addition to this interiority and subjectivity, an abstract theme of power, conquest, rise and fall is established. We advance over a vista of the baroque materialism through which Kane (we shall learn) has striven to establish his ascendancy, savoring this titan's Romantic passion for florid detail, a multitude of objects to serve as the properties of his dream; we advance, and we rise, and we watch the glass ball drop and shatter: we are fascinated at the prospect of illusion even as the prime symbol of illusion explodes. The tension between objective facts and subjective revelation is extraordinary, so much so that character Kane's manipulations of reality to establish and exercise power will have to be treated separately from narrator Kane/Welles' (greater) awareness of and fascination with the mysteries of media.
***
One of several handy paraphrases for Citizen Kane is that it just goes to show you how wealth and power are bound to corrupt a fellow, especially when he's taken away from his mother too early. A nice thing about seeing good films again and again is that one very soon, and all but unconsciously, deemphasizes the more unfortunate aspects of the experience. While the preceding paraphrase is very big with most writers on Kane (who are quick to get with it by pointing out that this is why Welles is so big with young people), I think it may distort the film's basic impulses seriously. For all the close resemblances to and near-quotations from William Randolph Hearst's career, the film and Charlie Kane are less historical than personal, and the bloated carcass of Kane's universe is laid out in trappings too basic to Orson Welles' own expressive vision for us to accept so patly moralistic a reading of the film. Kane's excesses of material indulgence and dramatic gesture do reverberate within a social framework, but they are much more persuasive - we watch the film time and again - because they define a personality.
Rather than consider power in terms of a cautionary fable about citizen dictators, let's see how it is exercised and sometimes transferred within the scenes we watch on screen. Few frames of Citizen Kane do not say something about this theme. We can immediately understand how a figure looming over another and literally overshadowing him dominates the person, as when Kane tells Susan, "My reasons satisfy me ... You will continue with your singing." Similarly, when Gettys walks out on Kane at 185 West 74th Street, the huge, satisfied smile of Gettys in foreground clearly signs victory over the small figure of Kane in the distance; Kane may be higher on the steps, but he is actually lower in the shot because of the camera angle, Gettys' face seeming to disappear upwards out of the frame as well as out the side.
There are numerous variations on the visual expression of power:
After the montage of early Inquirer headlines, the indignant Thatcher, Kane's former guardian, comes to see the young publisher. As the sequence begins, Thatcher stands over Kane, who sits at a desk. Height represents no real advantage, however, for Thatcher's face is turned away from us and Kane's towards us, making it all the easier for his personality to dominate the visual and dramatic interest. Thatcher sits down and Kane begins to parry with him. The camera keeps adjusting itself with each quip, collaborating with Kane, almost laughing with him. And when both men stand at the end of the scene, Kane is taller, having taken over the one advantage Thatcher enjoyed at the beginning of the shot (and of their relationship).
The preceding sequence ends with Kane's joke about having to close in sixty years. We go immediately to the year 1929, 'way short of the prediction, and see Thatcher taking over a good deal of Kane's power in the name of the bank. Thatcher sits large in left foreground, with Kane's manager Bernstein at right. Kane walks away into the distance, acknowledging that "we're bust." His comparative size would seem to indicate defeat, but in fact he possesses an advantage: he can walk while Thatcher seems so crippled he can scarcely sit up and complete sentences. (Of course the Thatchers make a lot of money because they desire only to make a lot of money, as Bernstein says, very aware that he himself has a ticker tape in his hand; they lurk spiderlike for buzzing flies like Kane, and indeed the shot of Thatcher's absurd statue is made the more comically absurd by the weblike background of the leading in the skylight above.)
Kane is immobile in a later famous deep-focus scene which he dominates nonetheless. His face is set huge at screen left; he types the conclusion to Jed Leland's review while Jed approaches from a distance. Kane rolls his eyes to the side a couple times, very aware of Jed's approach. Jed has come to Charlie, who will determine the outcome of the scene.
Kane approaches from the background of a scene that follows soon after: Susan's singing lesson. In foreground, Signor Matisti the opera coach is bullying Susan in his best theatrical manner. Unlike Kane in the previous example, he does not know of the approach behind him, so that when Kane speaks abruptly, power shifts.
When Kane and Leland arrive at the Inquirer offices early in the film, Kane very politely speaks to one of the desk men, a Dickensian type who promptly turns in a half-circle to his nearest neighbor. That man in turn describes a semicircle to call to their supervisor, Mr. Carter. Carter sits at left foreground on a raised platform. He rises from his chair in an elaborate semicircle, rings a bell, executing a self-importantly ornate curving maneuver as he turns and descends and starts toward the newcomers. At that moment Carter's style ceases to be imposed on the office. He mistakes Leland for Kane, Kane for Leland, and as the attendant confusion escalates, Carter switching his glance over his shoulder while shaking the one man's hand and calling the other's name, we observe a new visual mode, rectilinear and democratically horizontal.
Shortly thereafter, Carter stands over the seated Kane as the new publisher and occupant of Carter's office gleefully remakes the world. Carter's upright spluttering is negated by the presence of Leland's impudent face in the other downscreen corner: Jed and Charlie have him conspiratorially surrounded.
This by no means exhausts the possible examples or even the various strategies. Sometimes the comment carries from one shot or sequence to the next, as when the homecoming Kane smugly assures the reporter there will be no war and the next newsreel clip shows him dropping mortar on himself while trying to look imposing at a cornerstone ceremony; this shot proceeds to show the elder Kane at a loss very like Mr. Carter, with workmen swinging hooks and cables around him while the narrator speaks of his having lost the power to control history. But the newsreel also suggests Kane's personal force, as when the horses and giraffes of Xanadu turn their heads in time with the musical accompaniment of an empire-building theme. Later we shall see Bernstein and Leland in a quick shot at the newspaper banquet, Bernstein jauntily joining the song about "good old Charlie Kane," Leland looking dour and resistant but nodding his head and finally singing too.
The narrator is scrupulously fair, as in the long run Kane is fair. Jim W. Gettys is first introduced to us verbally in terms of abuse as Kane speaks on the political platform. Our first sight of him is unpleasant as well, aside from the pleasure in recognizing from his knowingly replaced derby high above Madison Square Garden that Kane isn't going to get away with his bombastic foray into the world of politics; seen at that angle, Gettys seems rather misshapen, like Thatcher. He next appears as a menacing silhouette in the door of Susan's apartment, blocking the light and controlling the scene. He stays in darkness until the moment he steps forward to offer the first Mrs. Kane his idea of what a gentleman would and wouldn't do. Whatever cheap, crooked grafting he might have done (and the movie leaves this entirely unsubstantiated, though curiously not in doubt either), in this moment he makes an honorable claim on our regard: "Mrs. Kane, if I owned a newspaper and I didn't like the way some politician was doing things, I'd fight him with everything I had. But I wouldn't run a picture of him in a convict's suit so his children could see it in the paper, and maybe his mother." Kane too is in shadow throughout this sequence until the moment he steps forward - in effect, to renounce his family.
***
Sympathy is divided throughout Citizen Kane; save perhaps for Raymond the butler, there is not a character, however pompous or shrill or materialistic, for whom some angle, some shading, some small sign of personal vulnerability does not mitigate our dislike or contempt. (I except such cardboard creations as the staff of the Chicago Inquirer who gloat over the favorable reviews they have written to - they trust - Mr. Kane's satisfaction.) The shared subjectivity of the film is the most thoroughgoing means of establishing this. The death-dream of the opening sequence gives way to a newsreel obit of which Kane the popular newsman would undoubtedly have approved on a formal basis. As the newsreel ends, the media-conscious narrator transfers us further out of Kane's cavernous personality by cutting from a frontal view of the News on the March end title to a sideways angle of the screen, then the projector beam, then the projection machine itself. But a sense of projection obtains as we concentrate on the inhabitants of the screening room: an unrealistically vivid light source in the projection booth causes shafts of light to stab through the ports and separate the newsmen into sectors of jittery motion. Thompson the inquiring reporter becomes an extension of the newsreel itself, a newsreel dominated by Kane's personality; he and his companions, ever in shadow or shot from behind, never have enough identity of their own to displace Kane's or to disrupt our own sense of sharing Kane's kinesthetic adventure.
Like Hitchcock, but very much in his own fashion, Welles has a genius for conveying the private experience in the midst of public event. Charlie the boy may spend most of the childhood sequence as a distant figure circumscribed by the frame of a window, helpless and unknowing as his youth is signed away in the foreground; but by the time he has pushed Thatcher with the sled and been struck at by his father, he is ready to be brought into terrible closeup in a shot that begins on his mother's conjugal accusation and ends with his cosmic glare: he knows: Charles Foster Kane's future begins and ends here. (Cut to the shot of the sled, a train whistle muffled almost mercifully by the snow that, as it falls, rises in preservative and also access-denying layers: the formation of a personality.)
In the case of Susan Alexander Kane's opera debut, Welles has a field day mocking the extravagant absurdities of setting properties, placing spear-(fan-)carriers, hustling bovine handmaidens back and forth. In the midst of it all, Susie contorts in an agony of effort while Matisti bellows into her face. Both renditions of the event include a sudden tilt up from Susie to an overhead light; and in both cases the apparent camera movement is in fact two immaculately joined shots so that Welles can have the directly overhead light snap into view before it logically should: things are not where they ought to be for Susie, this particular detail of the world being literally out of joint. But while Welles so ingeniously conveys Susie's sense of dislocation, it is only to approach Kane's own existential agony from another perspective ("We're going to be a great opera star"). There are several unforgettable shots of the side of Kane's head using the full height of the screen at left while Susan sings, grotesquely tiny, a pawn in his game, the surrogate in his dream, in the limelight; Welles also cuts between Kane in the shadows and Susie with her gaunt face, too-sharp features, and paint-shadowed eyes. (It is especially interesting in terms of Kane's dream projection that Susie, in a stepped-on line at their first meeting, reveals that she didn't come up with the idea of a singing career in the first place: it was her mother's idea. If we assume Kane has registered this subconsciously, the psychology of his own motivation is significantly reinforced.) After her suicide attempt, she tells him he doesn't know what it's like to be aware that a whole audience doesn't want you, although of course a statewide "audience" has just rejected Kane as a political candidate. His words to console her console him: "It's their loss" - they refused the gift, the opportunity to take their proffered role in his scenario. Few details in the film are more succinct than the dollhouse furnishings of the suite Kane gives Susan at Xanadu: the painted animals decorating the beams not only echo the private zoo on the grounds but clearly indicate Kane's ultimate vision of the bedroom-as-nursery. When Susan leaves him, Kane promises, "From now on, everything will be the way you want it. Not the way I think you want it, but - your way." His next words betray his inability to hold to that promise.
Susie is hardly the only person whose identity Kane attempts to usurp. He borrows Jed Leland's column. One of the most striking instances of the private-within-the-public is the cut from Kane's ordering a typewriter to an extreme closeup of the letters "w-e-a-k" slapping onto paper with crushing force. We cut immediately again to Jed waking up and raising his head from his typewriter in the inner office; out in the newsroom we hear the busy clickety-clack of the review being typed at normal speed and realize that the comparatively deliberate pace in the previous shot was intended to convey the ritual of punishment Kane was inflicting: on Susie for being too weak to sustain his emotional impresario's vision of her, on Jed for being too weak to finish the review, on himself for precipitating the whole sad affair. It was Jedediah who most clearly perceived Charlie's weakness, his need to extract from everyone else the performances necessary to support his own. Jedediah is especially qualified to appreciate Charlie's incompleteness since he himself is the other most conspicuously incomplete person in the film: as a (perennial) youth he needed Charlie's virtual support economically; he enters the film as he leaves life, attempting to borrow a cigar. He is the only person to stand equal with Kane, in the post-election scene of rebuke, neither character dominating the other or even trying to. It is he who extracts from Kane the definitive line in the movie: "A toast, Jedediah, to love on my terms. Those are the only terms anybody ever knows - his own."
***
Citizen Kane would lose a great deal of resonance if it were the second instead of the first film of Orson Welles. Aside from "Rosebud," the first line that Welles' Kane utters is: "I don't know how to run a newspaper - I just try everything I can think of." It is hard to hold separate this man and the wunderkind who appraised RKO's studios as "the biggest electric train any kid ever had to play with." Citizen Kane is about a number of things, but my favorite "about" is Orson Welles and his intoxication with the film medium. Or, if we must keep Hearst, etc., in mind, the very idea of media. For a good movie is about what keeps happening in it, and nothing happens in Citizen Kane as constantly as media.
Kane stages a number of spectacles - the banquet celebrating the acquisition of the Chronicle staff, a political campaign, an opera, a picnic - but the example straightest to the point is the shadow play he carries on to entertain Susan the evening they meet. She ass if he is a magician, and we don't need to know of Welles' experience in that line to appreciate what's going on here. A master of media projecting shadowy illusions on a wall - the scene echoes the first images we saw: dark-on-light patterns of increasing sophistication mounting toward coherent narration: the literal subject was fence, mesh, wire: a primal screen. The newsreel that follows Kane's demise is an orgy of cinematic effects savored for their own sake as much as used for verisimilitude: the grossly dissimilar film stocks (a dim, blocked-up shot of a body-clogged swimming pool setting off a line about the "private pleasure-ground"), the purposefully scratched and underexposed or overdeveloped new footage interspersed with actual newsreel, the delicious recreation of media inadvertencies (the jump cut from Thatcher offering to read a statement, to a closeup as the first word is all but pinched off; the union man almost jumping a phrase and then doubly blowing his line: "He is today what he has always been, a - and always will be - a fatshist!"), the melodramatization of Thompson's voiceover and the accompanying music (the empire-building theme is from Gunga Din, an RKO production of a year earlier - specifically, the scene where the Guru discloses his visions of his "wave engulfing all India!"). Here is a vital new director delighting in his marvelous new toys. And it is not irrelevant to note (though surely there was no intended meaning in it) that the filmmakers' conference in the screening room after the newsreel virtually amounts to a Mercury Theatre green-room session, with Welles' key assistants and co-players in gleefully anonymous attendance.
Kane is a film containing many specimens of plastic and literary representation: photographs of Kane and his mother, a woodcut of the Kane boardinghouse, architect's sketches of the Chicago Opera House, statues of Walter P. Thatcher and a dame without a head, posters for Susan's operas, memorial paintings of Thatcher and Kane, a declaration of principles, a rejected cartoon, alternative newspaper headlines.... The magic of cinema enables the regular handwriting of Thatcher to take on authority and persuasiveness by virtue of a captivating traveling shot that sweeps us along Thatcher's line and then whites us into the very parchment and, beyond that, the snows of a Colorado childhood. We see a photograph of Charles Foster Kane, his wife, and his son, and an hour or so later we see the photograph being made. We watch Emily Kane and Jim Gettys make their separate ways out of the shot of 185 West 74th, and we anticipate that this housefront will resolve into the scandal-sheet halftone we have already seen in the newsreel: we watch history become history, time have a stop.
Sometimes objects serve as media unobtrusively. "Since the pyramids, Xanadu is the costliest monument a man has built to himself" - what is the difference between this and the psychologically precise abstraction of his own face that towers behind Kane in the political hall? One of hundreds of fleeting, suggestive impressions in the film is the instantaneous perception afforded us of the door to Susan's room at Xanadu as the maid closes it behind her: it is not unlike one of her jigsaw puzzles we have observed in three-dimensional crosslighting. Compare the cold, smooth, characterless portal that slams behind Thompson at the Thatcher Memorial Library: each man has left appropriately reflective monuments in media of materiality. Kane's theatrical sense converts objects into punctuation marks: during the virtuoso montage of breakfast scenes, Emily protests to Charles, "People will think -" and he cuts in: "- what I tell them to think" and his coffee cup adds a period: CLINK. When finishing Jed Leland's notice, Kane listens to Jed say, "I didn't know we were speaking," and we see him slip the typewriter carriage from midline to the margin so he can follow his "Sure we're speaking, Jedediah - you're fired" with a slammed exclamation point. Conversely, Kane's hollow threat to put Gettys in Sing Sing is cut off by a door and mockingly completed by an auto horn. And some objects become the vehicles of grotesque poetry within the film: Kane's family is visually broken up when Junior is sent home in the car; we recall that Junior and Emily are killed several years later in a motor accident. There is no telling the medium of fatality.
But the medium through which reality is perceived can be controlled. Media can even alter reality. Kane points out to Carter that a big enough headline makes the news big. He proceeds from noticing that the Chronicle carries a story on the missing Mrs. Harry Silverstone of Brooklyn to averring that she's probably murdered. Mrs. Silverstone comes home to roost when Gettys later threatens to print "the story" of Kane and Susan, someone protests that "There isn't any story," and Gettys frankly acknowledges: "We got evidence that'll look bad in the headlines." Two characters in the film are consistently concerned with the how as well as the what they say. Jed confesses to Thompson that he was "what you nowadays call a stooge." You can almost hear the quotation marks as Kane, conscious of the ritual nature of his behavior, tells Susan, "I was on my way to the Western Manhattan warehouse - 'in search of my youth' ... a 'sentimental journey.'" And you can definitely hear them when Jed confronts Charlie after the election: "You talk about 'the people' as though you owned them.... Remember 'the working man'? ... He's turned into something called 'organized labor.'..." Kane, as he admits in the same scene with a mixture of ruefulness and defiance, can only deal with others on and in his "own terms." But he gives those terms to history: he sarcastically pleads guilty to "setting back the sacred cause of reform," and in some mystical transfer in the consciousness of the film's narrator, the phrase turns up in the newsreel commentary. And doesn't Charlie accept Jed's casual imagery and "sail away to a desert island somewhere and lord it over the monkeys" (the first creatures we see at Xanadu)? Jed, in some compulsive wordsmithing with Thompson, speaks of the private sort of greatness Charlie kept to himself: "He never gave himself away, he never gave anything away - just left you with a tip." The other side of the coin of Charlie's "own terms" is that he could never use his own self as a medium of exchange.
As to Orson Welles' self, it is prodigally lavished over the entire wonderful film. If we could not see his hand in every scene, we should still see him in almost every scene. Von Sternberg is to be found in The Blue Angel in the incandescent presence of Marlene Dietrich's Lola, the obsessive devotion to her of Emil Jannings' schoolmaster, and the bitter amusement of master of ceremonies Kurt Gerron - indeed, in any male who ever addresses Dietrich or stands in visual relation to her; equal parts of Howard Hawks are distributed between both men as John Wayne, in El Dorado, looks down at Chris George, who lies dying from Wayne's bullets; and Fellini is proprietarily represented if not necessarily expressed through every grotesque who wanders through his films. But Welles is here himself, and there's little sense trying to sort out now whether Kane was modeled after him or whether he has been playing Kane since 1941. When Kane sleepwalks down the corridor at Xanadu clutching one of his "Rosebuds" (the ultimate quotation), it becomes the occasion of one of the most extraordinary shots in cinema: Caught between mirrored walls, he projects an infinity of Welles/Kanes on either side. We admire the shot, and probably we give a start as the "real" Kane steps into view very near the camera; we had been watching the total illusion without realizing - and on film besides. Then the "real" Kane passes out of the shot, leaving an infinite regression of baroque frames. Just before the shot fades out, the camera nudges in ever so slightly, beyond the "real" frame into bottomless illusion. And there we remain.
*** [[In-content Ad]] | ||||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 69 | https://cinema.wisc.edu/blog/2015/01/21/wisconsins-own-agnes-moorehead | en | Wisconsin's Own Agnes Moorehead! | [
"https://cinema.wisc.edu/sites/all/themes/ctek_test_01/logo.png",
"https://cinema.wisc.edu/sites/cinema.wisc.edu/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Moorehead.jpg?itok=-0_IL52G"
] | [
"//www.youtube.com/embed/W964kq1U6JU"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2015-01-21T00:00:00 | en | https://cinema.wisc.edu/sites/all/themes/ctek_test_01/favicon.ico | https://cinema.wisc.edu/blog/2015/01/21/wisconsins-own-agnes-moorehead | This essay on Agnes Moorehead and her performance in Citizen Kane was written by Evan Davis, UW Alum and former Cinematheque staff member
What is there left to say about Citizen Kane, the “greatest movie ever made” (or second-greatest, depending on who you read)? The stories of its production and release have been visited and re-visited, refuted and affirmed, analyzed and and analyzed and analyzed. On a personal level, the film was my cinephile origin story: A late-night viewing in September 2001, at the raw age of 16, changed my life forever. But even that experience has been picked through in the dark corners of my own psyche. Orson Welles’s first feature is a bleached skeleton on the dried riverbed of movie history, the vultures fat and happy from their feast. So I’m just going to talk about Agnes Moorehead, the most underrated actor of her generation.
Moorehead has deep Wisconsin roots. Her family moved to Reedsburg from St. Louis in 1919, when Moorehead was a young woman. She earned a Master’s degree in English at UW-Madison, working as a teacher throughout her young life. She studied acting at the American Academy of Dramatic Arts in New York, and just before turning 30, she decided to chase her childhood dream of being a star. But it wasn’t to be, not at first, anyway. Moorehead struggled to find work, going hungry for much of those early years in New York. Radio gave her a steady paycheck, and in 1937, the 36-year-old Moorehead met a hotshot 22-year-old theatre director who would become the catalyst for her nascent career: Orson Welles. Moorehead spent two years as part of the Mercury Theatre on the Air and Campbell Playhouse cast, in addition to playing Margo Lane opposite Welles’s Lamont Cranston in The Shadow. When Welles uprooted Mercury to Hollywood in late 1939, Moorehead went along. Citizen Kane was their first film, and dear old Agnes was off and running.
Moorehead’s role in Kane is not exactly a large one based on screen time; she’s in only one scene—two shots total—for all of four minutes. But as Mary, the mother of Charles Foster Kane, she may have the most important role in the whole film. She is, after all, the psychological engine that drives Kane for the rest of his life, the symbol of lost innocence, of love never received; Rosebud in the flesh.
Moorehead has to make quick work of her time onscreen in order to convey the importance of Mary’s position in relation to young Charlie, but also the importance of the decision she makes. Welles helps anchor those acting choices by using the famous long-take, reverse tracking shot that keeps the young Kane perfectly framed in the boarding house window while Mary signs her brand-new gold fortune—and Kane’s legal guardianship—over to Walter Thatcher’s (George Coulouris) bank in the foreground. Watch Moorehead in this first shot, the icy resolve in her face, curtly shutting down Kane’s father, Jim (Harry Shannon). It’s all business, an investment made for future return. Jim subtly shuts the window as she signs the papers, closing the link between Mary and Charles, however briefly. And in a feat of pure, unbridled power, the camera tracks forward again as Mary goes to open the window, restoring the maternal bond.
It’s the first part of that second shot where you realize that Mary Kane is not simply a woman doing what she thinks is best for her son, but is bearing the full, tragic weight of that decision. A part of her is being severed. She stares out the window in medium-close-up, Thatcher and Jim in deep-focus midground, framing her. She maintains the same steely resolve, but her pain boils underneath her face, simmering and seething with false placidity. Citizen Kane comes down to this face, and the single line she utters: “I’ve got his trunk all packed. I’ve had it packed for a week now…” Mary Kane is confident that her son will be better off. But she can barely suppress the tragedy of losing him to the pages of history. Most actors portray such a loss by using every facial contortion and bodily gesticulation in the book; Moorehead doesn’t move an inch.
Welles’s critics often like to paint him as a showboat, a clever trickster more interested in showing off with the camera than a director possessed of any emotional or thematic depth. One can charitably describe this position as foolish. The man knew what he wanted to convey in his work, and used the oft-unconventional, always expressive tools at his disposal to get there. But when it came down to it, he loved actors most of all, and knew how to get the best out of them. With Moorehead, he had a perfect foil. It’s not insignificant that Welles called her “one of the best in the world.” Moorehead’s greatest performance was probably Fanny Minafer in The Magnificent Ambersons, but in her four minutes of screen time in Citizen Kane, she set in motion the tragedy of Charles Foster Kane’s life, all while masking the anguish of doing so. Those two shots never fail to bring me to tears, and it’s all because of Agnes Moorehead’s quietly devastating performance. | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 90 | https://amandagreer22.wixsite.com/the-close-up/single-post/2015/05/22/citizen-kane-and-cynical-look-at-american-dream-still-pertinent-today | en | 'Citizen Kane' and Cynical Look at American Dream Still Pertinent Today | [
"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/7ba64d_0682fa85a81643f5bc95555d393444bc.jpg/v1/fill/w_250,h_250,fp_0.50_0.50,q_30,blur_30,enc_auto/7ba64d_0682fa85a81643f5bc95555d393444bc.webp",
"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/7ba64d_0682fa85a81643f5bc95555d393444bc.jpg/v1/fill/w_286,h_160,fp_0.50_0.50,q_90,enc_auto/7ba64... | [] | [] | [
"blog",
"cinephile",
"cinephilia",
"culture",
"film",
"movie lovers",
"movie marathons",
"movies",
"review"
] | null | [
"amandagreer22"
] | 2015-05-22T00:00:00 | As part of my illustrious Sight & Sound challenge, I watched Orson Welles's seminal classic, Citizen Kane (1941). The film, which depicts the rise and fall of wealthy newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane, was recently bumped out of Sight & Sound's top spot by Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958). Re-enactment Whether one movie is better than the other is your own damn opinion; the more important thing to consider is how both these films, decades after their original release dates, continue | en | https://www.wix.com/favicon.ico | the-close-up | https://amandagreer22.wixsite.com/the-close-up/single-post/2015/05/22/citizen-kane-and-cynical-look-at-american-dream-still-pertinent-today | As part of my illustrious Sight & Sound challenge, I watched Orson Welles's seminal classic, Citizen Kane (1941). The film, which depicts the rise and fall of wealthy newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane, was recently bumped out of Sight & Sound's top spot by Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958).
Re-enactment
Whether one movie is better than the other is your own damn opinion; the more important thing to consider is how both these films, decades after their original release dates, continue to say something about our world.
With Citizen Kane, it is the film's attack on the American Dream that remains so relevant today, with making money many people's sole objective. Trust me, as a Cinema Studies student with a Bachelor of Arts, I've spent my fair share of mixers answering the question, "But what will you do with something like that?"
My face is frozen like this now
Orson Welles's film was, funny enough, one of the first things we watched in my film program. I had never seen it before, and when it finished, I was astounded that amidst the glitz and glamour of Studio Era Hollywood productions was this gem which basically took down wealth and fame as nothing more than alienating and debilitating.
And for some reason, Hollywood loved that.
The film begins with Charles Foster Kane's final moments. He falls to the ground in his gigantic mansion, Xanadu, and utters a final word: Rosebud.
A lengthy "News on the March" segment then begins, before revealing that a group of newspapermen are watching the segment and preparing it for release. The newspaper editor tells his men that they're missing one piece of the puzzle: the meaning of Kane's final word, Rosebud.
"Rosebud...it'll probably turn out to be something quite simple," the editor says, before sending one of his men into the field to investigate Kane. Little does he know that these words foreshadow the film's arresting conclusion.
This is where the film really begins to say something. Rather than approach Kane's life from the position of an impartial observer, as most biopics would do, Welles uses conduits into Kane's life to tell their own stories. So, we eventually have his old guardian, Thatcher's narrative, his business partner Bernstein's, his ex-friend Leland's, and his ex-wife Susan Alexander's. These narratives are all incredibly fragile and unreliable, told as they are from the point of view of someone who knew Kane only from the outside. As he did not care for Kane, Leland's tales paint him in a more negative light; Bernstein, who always liked Kane, relates only the events of Kane's successes, rather than failures. Subjectivity cannot be fully trusted.
Citizen Kane is infuriating and entrancing in its declaration that we can never truly know someone. No matter how many stories we hear, or news segments we watch, Kane remains just as enigmatic as ever--just as do many celebrities caught in the media-saturated world of popular culture.
Who knows what's going on behind that facade?
Citizen Kane's critique of popular culture extends to a take-down of the American Dream. Kane embodies a classic rags-to-riches tale. With his humble beginnings, he vows to be a voice of the Working Man. As we might expect, however, this proclamation becomes null when Kane's money starts to overshadow his values. The drawback of the American Dream, then, is that you never stop wanting more--enough is never enough.
By the film's end, Kane is just an old man alone in a gigantic house. Rich, but alienated from everyone around him.
~*~*~*All by myseeeeelf~*~*~*
Welles deftly crafts this critique of the American Dream which, as I mentioned earlier, is still entirely relevant. Look at contestants on game shows, lottery ticket scratchers, reality show wannabe-celebrities, and it's not difficult to see that the endgame in mind for all of them is remaining rich, famous, and, of course, beloved.
I recently watched the documentary, The Queen of Versailles (2012) , which follows the founder and owner of Westgate Resorts, the biggest timeshare company in North America, as he builds the largest single-family home in the United States of America: Versailles. The reason? "Because I can," he says, proudly. Lauren Greenfield's documentary shows the ills of mega-richness as she contrasts interviews with the family's matriarch, Jackie Siegel, in which she gleefully comments on her $17,000 pair of alligator-skin boots, with interviews with the Philippino nannies living in the house. One such tearful interview reveals that the nanny hasn't seen her own son since he was seven... and he is now 26. She comments that the Siegel children are like her own, and they are all she has.
Pictured: Humble, Everyday Americans
Clearly, the American Dream is not one of equality, but one of climbing up to new heights without a care for who might get stomped beneath your feet. Such is the message of Citizen Kane and, of course, the reason why Welles's film continues to be important today.
There are many other things to say about Citizen Kane, other than its social/political critique and interesting use of narration. Its use of deep focus cinematography, for one, is impeccable and makes for a crisp, noir-ish aesthetic. Really, the entire film comes together so effortlessly and cleanly that its two-hour runtime whips by. Maybe Citizen Kane needed to be knocked out of the top spot to give someone else a chance, but did it deserve to reign over 'em all for 50 years?
Abso-tootin'-lootely.
Welles takes his viewers on a journey so wonderfully emotional and intriguing that it becomes almost as exciting as sledding in Colorado on a wintry day. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 66 | https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/how-to-citizen-kane-your-film/ | en | 6 Ways to “Citizen Kane” Your Film | [
"https://vip-go.premiumbeat.com/wp-content/themes/thebeatcom/images/logo_black.svg",
"https://vip-go.premiumbeat.com/wp-content/themes/thebeatcom/images/burger.svg",
"https://vip-go.premiumbeat.com/wp-content/themes/thebeatcom/images/ico_shopping.svg",
"https://vip-go.premiumbeat.com/wp-content/themes/thebeat... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/HAHaRDlUrLw?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/ET7gj5_PZV8?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en-US&autohide=2&wmode=transparent",
"https://www.youtube.c... | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"David Goodman"
] | 2017-01-16T17:37:24+00:00 | The filmmaking techniques on display in Citizen Kane have influenced generations of artists. Here are six takeaways for your next film or video project. | en | The Beat: A Blog by PremiumBeat | https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/how-to-citizen-kane-your-film/ | The filmmaking techniques on display in Citizen Kane continue to influence generations of artists. Here are six takeaways for your next film or video project.
Citizen Kane images and clips via Warner
Citizen Kane is still considered one of the greatest films ever made. Despite the fact that the film was released 75 years ago, it continues to be a source of inspiration for modern filmmakers like Star Wars Episode VIII director Rian Johnson. Let’s consider Kane’s legacy and discover some practical filmmaking techniques that you can put to use in your own projects.
1. Deep Focus
One of the key collaborations during the production of Citizen Kane was between the director/producer Orson Welles and his cinematographer, Gregg Toland. The beautifully-lit film is masterfully composed and makes use of deep focus. The deep focus is defined by a wide depth of field and was not a common technique at the time of production.
Deep focus allows subjects close and far away from the camera to remain in focus and is achieved by using a wide-angle lens and a smaller aperture. Deep focus means deep staging of characters along the z-axis. An early scene in Citizen Kane (below) is a great example of the deep focus found in the film.
Roger Ebert pointed out the importance of mise-en-scène, or placing on stage, when using deep focus. When everything in the composition is in focus, the filmmaker must be conscious of guiding the attention of the viewers. Ebert pinpointed how the movement of the subjects within the frame and camera movement can become ways to draw the eye and the attention of the viewer.
2. Long Takes
Extended takes, or “oners,” were around long before Birdman. Even before the production of Citizen Kane, directors such as F.W. Murnau used the technique to beautiful effect and likely influenced Welles and Toland. Murnau’s film, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans makes use of long takes and a variety of other cinematic innovations.
The previously mentioned Citizen Kane clip (seen above) is known for both its deep focus and the long tracking shot from the window to the table. Keep in mind that the film was made before the days of the Steadicam and other portable stabilizers. Because of this, furniture and props had to be moved around the camera as it tracked forward or backward. Roger Ebert pointed out an interesting clue to the moving table in the clip above. Watch the hat on the table (around :44) for a noticeable shake after being slid into position.
3. Expressionistic Lighting
The lighting style in Citizen Kane is decidedly chiaroscuro and owes a debt to German expressionism while also prefiguring the visual style of American film noir. Noir in the United States was just getting started in 1941 with the release of The Maltese Falcon.
The lighting reflects the plot, which seeks to understand the man behind the legendary public figure, Charles Foster Kane. The expressionistic lighting is fitting for a film that ends on a note of continued mystery. The true Charles Foster Kane remains in the shadows, making the lighting style a direct comment on the nature of identity in the film.
4. Low Angles and Ceilings
Stagecoach via Twentieth Century Fox
The many low-angle shots in Citizen Kane meant that the sets needed ceilings. Director John Ford used ceilings in some of his films (for example, Stagecoach, as seen above) but the technique was not commonplace in 1941 because of lighting and audio needs.
Fun fact: According to Ebert, the ceilings in Citizen Kane were constructed of cloth to allow microphones to be placed above the heads of the actors.
Ceilings are quite commonplace in film productions these days. In fact, the use of ceilings can work to one’s advantage in low-budget genre films produced without the luxury of an expansive set. For example, consider the use of low-angle ceiling shots in Beyond the Black Rainbow.
Beyond the Black Rainbow via Magnet
When it comes to cinematography techniques, there are too many to list. Gregg Toland was absolutely essential to the film.
Toland was so essential, in fact, that Welles showed his appreciation to his cinematographer by sharing an end title card, as you can see above.
5. Editing & Structure
Vagabond via Criterion
The non-linear plot structure of Citizen Kane has a lot in common with a detective film. After the death of the main character, we as viewers follow a faceless investigator as he interviews the important figures in the life of Charles Foster Kane. The stated objective is to understand Kane’s dying word, “Rosebud.” However, it’s hard to pin down a precise genre or classification for Citizen Kane because it’s such a broad mix of different genre elements.
The biopic, interview-style reconstruction of a Kane’s life contributes to the narrative complexity in Citizen Kane. This non-linear structural technique crops up consistently in modern cinema. One notable must-see example is Agnes Varda’s Vagabond.
Welles was certainly fond of long takes but he also made great use of rapid-fire montage to dispense with time in an efficient and artful way. Consider the twenty-year ellipsis cut (seen below) between Thatcher’s well wishes on Christmas and New Year’s. This cut is also an example of what Welles called a “lightning mix,” which is considered in the section on sound below.
Perhaps more well-known is the breakfast-scene montage (below) between Kane and his wife. In it, we get to watch a rapid-fire transition from happy newlyweds to a disenchanted married couple. Also worth noting in this sequence is the theatrical lighting cue at the beginning. You can see the background light dim during the dissolve to help transition from Jedediah Leland’s interview to the breakfast scene.
It’s important to remember that Robert Wise edited Citizen Kane. Wise would later make a name for himself directing a number of major movie classics, like The Day the Earth Stood Still, West Side Story, The Sound of Music, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
6. Complex Sound
Orson Welles made a name for himself in radio with the infamous War of the Worlds radio broadcast, so he certainly had an ear for audio innovation.
Welles made use of overlapping dialogue, which means that characters talk over one another’s lines. Overlapping dialogue is a technique Robert Altman used famously throughout his films. Welles used the technique throughout Citizen Kane, but one of the more obvious moments is during the screening room sequence (pictured above).
In addition to the overlapping dialogue, Welles used what he called a “lightning mix.” This is a way of rapidly transitioning between scenes by using a continuation of a sound effect or a line of dialogue. The previously mentioned scene with Thatcher on Christmas and New Year’s is an example. Another example is the following sequence.
Kane’s clapping transitions to the applause of a small group supporters listening to Jedediah Leland give a speech about Kane. Leland’s speech is then used to transition to Kane’s famous speech in front of what appears to be a huge crowd.
In Conclusion
Citizen Kane remains a rich textbook of seemingly endless production techniques for every filmmaker. From deep focus to overlapping dialogue, there are too many takeaways to list. Citizen Kane should be on every filmmaker’s must-see list. The impressive filmmaking techniques and themes continue to remain relevant today. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 89 | https://www.criterionforum.org/Review/citizen-kane-the-criterion-collection-blu-ray | en | Citizen Kane | [
"https://www.criterionforum.org/img/cf-logo-slim.gif",
"https://www.criterionforum.org/img/header/headerphoto3747211.jpg",
"https://www.criterionforum.org/img/associates/amazon/us_banner_logow.gif",
"https://www.criterionforum.org/img/associates/amazon/ca_banner_logow.gif",
"https://www.criterionforum.org/i... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | <p>In the most dazzling debut feature in cinema history, twenty-five-year-old writer-producer-director-star Orson Welles synthesized the possibilities of sound-era filmmaking into what could be called the first truly modern movie. In telling the story of the meteoric rise and precipitous fall of a William Randolph Hearst–like newspaper magnate named Charles Foster Kane, Welles not only created the definitive portrait of American megalomania, he also unleashed a torrent of stylistic innovations—from the jigsaw-puzzle narrative structure to the stunning deep-focus camera work of Gregg Toland—that have ensured that <em>Citizen Kane </em>remains fresh and galvanizing for every new generation of moviegoers to encounter it.</p> | en | https://criterionforum.org/Review/citizen-kane-the-criterion-collection-blu-ray/1 | BUY AT:
See more details, packaging, or compare
Synopsis
In the most dazzling debut feature in cinema history, twenty-five-year-old writer-producer-director-star Orson Welles synthesized the possibilities of sound-era filmmaking into what could be called the first truly modern movie. In telling the story of the meteoric rise and precipitous fall of a William Randolph Hearst–like newspaper magnate named Charles Foster Kane, Welles not only created the definitive portrait of American megalomania, he also unleashed a torrent of stylistic innovations—from the jigsaw-puzzle narrative structure to the stunning deep-focus camera work of Gregg Toland—that have ensured that Citizen Kane remains fresh and galvanizing for every new generation of moviegoers to encounter it.
Picture 8/10
Making its way back into The Criterion Collection 37-years after being the label’s first title on LaserDisc, Orson Welles’ influential debut Citizen Kane is presented here in a new Blu-ray edition (as spine 1104), sourced from a brand-new 4K restoration performed by Criterion and Warner Bros., scanned primarily from a 35mm nitrate composite fine-grain master made directly from the original negative that appears to no longer exist. Where damage was too heavy, a 35mm duplicate negative was used. The film is presented in the aspect ratio of 1.37:1 on the first dual-layer disc of the three-disc set. The Blu-ray is being released simultaneously alongside a 4K UHD/Blu-ray combo and I am working off of the Blu-ray disc found in that edition. Outside of this edition missing the 4K disc, the editions are otherwise the same.
Updated: Feb 24, 2022
Criterion’s original pressing for their Blu-ray edition of Citizen Kane featured an error: around 24-minutes in the contrast flattens out and washes everything in a gray, leading to a flattened image with no depth and a loss in detail. This looks to have been a case of a bad HDR-to-SDR conversion. Criterion addressed the problem and have issued new discs with a corrected presentation. The image now features better contrast and wider range, and reflects what the first 24-or-so-minutes showed on the original disc.
The image still appears “darker” compared to Warner’s previous Blu-ray edition, possibly due to an adjustment in contrast (which ends up hiding the faces a bit better in that early projector room scene), but blacks look sharp, whites are clean, and there’s still a healthy level of range in the grays. Not counting the newsreel footage that opens the film, which was purposely scratched and scuffed, this presentation does manage to look a bit cleaner in comparison to Warner’s disc, only a few minor marks remaining. The image also doesn’t show any shifts in the frame. The encode itself looks good, no obvious artifacts popping up while viewing.
In all it looks good, but isn’t a significant improvement over Warner’s original release.
Original comments below:
Original Grade: 5/10
As has already been noted online there is an issue that crosses over to the standard Blu-ray on both editions, not the UHD: around the time the Bernstein interview begins, maybe even a bit before, contrast goes way off, flattening just about everything to a dark gray, wiping out textures and detail in the process. It’s suspected that somewhere along the line the remaining portion of the film was poorly converted from HDR to SDR, and after doing my own crummy HDR-to-SDR screengrabs from the 4K disc, I would strongly agree that is more than likely what happened.
Criterion is already working on a fix and a new Blu-ray should hopefully be available soon, yet based on the first 24-or-so-minutes (and how the 4K disc turned out when viewed in SDR mode) I’d say this has turned out quite well. To my surprise the first 24-or-so-minutes manages to look better in a few ways when compared to Warner’s already impressive Blu-ray edition, which I think was also sourced from a 4K restoration (though I’m not 100% certain on that admittedly). The image is cleaner, and I’d say a bit more stable, only a few minor bits of debris and what look like the remnants of mold stains on the side remaining. This of course doesn't count the opening newsreel footage, which was purposely damaged to capture the appropriate look.
Contrast is decent but the film does look a little darker in comparison to the previous Blu-ray, blacks coming off a little heavier, but grayscale (again, in the first portions of the film before the technical glitch kicks in) is pretty good, as cleanly shown in the projector room scene following the newsreel sequence, where the smoke is rendered nicely thanks to that sharp contrast and the clean gradients. Shadow details are also nice when the blacks aren’t super heavy.
Before the technical glitch, which manages to severely flatten out the image, grain is rendered cleanly, and the bitrate is healthy, more than likely thanks to the entire disc being devoted to the film. No digital artifacts come to the forefront during the first 24-or-so-minutes.
In all, the first portion of the film looks nice, and it looks promising for the rest of the film after Criterion addresses the contrast issue and reissues new discs.
NOTE: The first five screen grabs below are from the original pressing and represent the portion untouched by the HDR-to-SDR error. The remaining grabs present similar frames from both pressings, the first from the new corrected pressing, the following from the first pressing, showing the error. While Criterion has corrected the problem and all new copies of their Blu-ray and 4K combo editions contain the corrected disc, this comparison can be used to double-check your copy. Corrected editions should have "Second Printing" marked in the fine print on the disc art.
Audio 7/10
Criterion includes a lossless PCM 1.0 monaural soundtrack. It’s an impressive sounding track considering the film’s age, the release marking its 80th anniversary. Bernard Herrmann’s score shows a shockingly wide amount of range with decent fidelity, dialogue even managing to sound the same. There’s some very minor background noise (which is pretty much expected) but damage isn’t heavy, no drops or pops present.
Extras 10/10
As expected, Criterion goes all out with special features, spreading them across the three discs. The first disc dedicates its space to the film but we do also get three audio commentaries to choose from. Criterion has first ported over the two commentaries recorded by Warner Bros. in 2002 for their DVD special edition,
the first featuring filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich and the other film critic Roger Ebert. Bogdanovich’s track is okay but is now probably the weakest of the three we get here. Since he knew Welles and even worked with him on the then-unfinished film The Other Side of the Wind, he has plenty of personal stories to share around Welles (and many others he’s not afraid to bring up), but he tends to go silent, pop up to comment a bit about something on screen, whether it’s a composition or technical detail, and then go silent again.
It's fine enough, but it’s completely overshadowed by Ebert’s track, which, all these years later, is still one of my favourite ones. Ebert comes off as far more passionate about the subject matter and rarely goes silent, treating the track as if it’s one of his lectures. As the film plays, he talks about the film’s visuals and the technical tricks Welles and cinematographer Gregg Toland employed in just about every shot and sequence. He’ll point out areas of the screen where you can see how complicated pans and pulls were pulled off, directing your attention to something that would break away for a camera to go through, or even explain how opticals are layered to pull off some unlikely shots. He explains the film’s deep depth of field and how it was accomplished, and then goes into how these visual tricks serve the purpose of the story. Ebert also tackles other subjects around the film’s history, sharing his own thoughts and feelings here and there, but it’s a track very much focused on the technical qualities of the film. Chances are most people who have purchased the film on DVD and/or Blu-ray in the past have already listened to it, but if one hasn’t yet they really need to give it a spin.
The third track, recorded exclusively for this edition, features critics Jonathan Rosenbaum and James Naremore. The two also provided decent-to-great tracks for Criterion’s editions of Welles’ Chimes at Midnight and The Magnificent Ambersons (oddly, not for Othello) and this one’s up there with those. Tackling what many would consider the mother of all films (though the two point out neither consider it the best film ever made, let alone Welles’ best film) the two occasionally feel to be walking on eggshells with each other as they seem to know they disagree—adamantly, apparently—on a number of subjects, seeming to walk around them. But when one says something and the other disagrees, the other lets them know. To an extent this leads them to touching on the many controversies around the film’s legacy, not least of which being the topic on who wrote the film, a topic that also gets brought up a few times throughout the features.
The two also talk about the film’s production and, like Ebert, cover the film’s technical attributes and effects work, go over William Randolph Hearst’s attempts in burying the film, and then how the film, after disappearing for years, started to come back into the mainstream and grow in stature. Throughout they also reference other critics and scholars, including the likes of Joseph McBride and Pauline Kael, Kael’s essay “Raising Kane” and the fallout from that leading to a decent discussion all on its own. It’s another nicely put together track from the two and they yet again keep the momentum going.
The remaining features are then spread over the other two dual-layer Blu-ray discs, the discs seeming to be divided by topic, Blu-ray 2 focusing on the film itself and 3 focusing on Welles’ Mercury Theatre and its troupe. The second disc starts things off with a making-of documentary, though interestingly not the one Warner has included with many their own special and deluxe editions, The Battle Over Citizen Kane, which was an episode from the PBS series American Experience. It may seem like a significant exclusion, but I assure you it’s not. Naremore even lets his distaste for that documentary come to the surface in the commentary track with Rosenbaum, stating he’s ashamed he even has a credit in it, which came out of his providing materials to the episode’s creators. It doesn’t take long to realize he hates the film.
That documentary does cover the film’s production and Hearst’s desire to have the film destroyed in good detail, yet it’s incredibly one-sided. Criticisms thrown at the documentary it feels as though Hearst rose from the dead to commission it aren’t too far off base: it really comes off more like a hit piece against Welles, even going out of its way to paint Hearst in a better light.
There are certain aspects around Welles and the film that prove to be touchy to an older generation, the one that discovered it when it made its way to revival houses after disappearing for years, and I’m sometimes shocked at the level of spite that can be thrown around when the accepted history of the film is challenged, something I got to witness on social media when David Fincher’s Mank was released. Thanks to those types of reactions it can be easy to dismiss the vitriol thrown at a documentary not conforming to a specific narrative locked in by a fervent fanbase, but even if I won’t let myself get worked up on such topics I still thought the documentary was ridiculous. One doesn’t even have to think of Citizen Kane as untouchable to recognize how unfair it is to Welles. It won’t be missed and I’m glad Criterion chose not to include it, going a different direction.
Instead, to fill in that gap, they have dug up a far more interesting and level-headed making-of, advertised here as a rarely seen feature, the 1991 BBC program commemorating the 50th anniversary of the film, The Complete “Citizen Kane.” The 95-minute television episode (which I think was shown before an airing of Citizen Kane) starts things off wonderfully by imagining the opening sequence of the film Welles originally intended to make first, Heart of Darkness, even recreating his planned models and possible narration before moving on to the film he would end up making, Citizen Kane. Through interviews the documentary covers the film’s production and the Hearst controversy in impeccable detail, then moving on to how it was rediscovered and grew in stature through the decades. Critics and scholars like Robert Carringer and Pauline Kael show up, Kael talking about her essay that started a firestorm, leading into the controversy around who should have writing credit. Bogdanovich also shows up to talk about a number of things, including offering a counter to Kael. The program also has an amusing little section covering the year leading up to Citizen Kane’s release, throws in archival interviews with Welles, and the last 10-minutes or so goes over Hearst’s career, drawing parallels to Kane’s life in the film. It’s a great little find on Criterion’s part, coming off fairer in its coverage without going one way or the other on certain controversies and topics. For anyone not already familiar with the film, this is a great place to go to learn about its production and how it came to be as highly regarded as it is today.
Moving on, Criterion has—as I expected—gone back to their LaserDisc features for the 50th anniversary release (not to be confused with their first LaserDisc edition for the film, spine #1, which only had a visual essay by Robert Carringer alongside the original trailer) and re-edited them for this edition. For Working on “Kane” Criterion edits together the interviews they conducted back in 1990 with actor Ruth Warrick, editor Robert Wise, and special-effects artist Linwood Dunn, who all directly worked on Kane. For its 18-minute running time the three talk about working with Welles and share their respective experiences on the film. Warrick talks about the dinner/marriage montage and the lack of directing she felt she received from Welles, the filmmaker explaining to her she didn’t need it, while Wise talks about the more complicated techniques that went into editing the film, like how they degraded the film for the newsreel footage. Dunn recounts some of the optical work and how Welles’ sensibilities changed as he became more familiar with the technical aspects of filmmaking. Freshly edited for this edition, it’s a great little feature providing first-hand accounts on the film, and the Warrick and Wise interviews are more satisfying than the short ones Warner Bros. included on their previous releases.
On Toland is a 15-minute feature on director of photography Gregg Toland, made up again of interviews Criterion recorded back in 1990 for the 50th Anniversary LaserDisc edition, this time with cinematographers Allen Daviau, Haskell Wexler, and Vilmos Zsigmond. The three recount how the first saw the film and how it impacted them and continues to influence them. They talk about the film’s complicated lighting and depth of field, and it was fun hearing how the three, particularly Zsigmond, still weren’t completely sure how Toland was able to pull of some of the sequences, at least when this interview was recorded 30-years ago.
Craig Barron and Ben Burtt, visual effects and sound effects experts respectively, take a deep dive into the film’s effects work, with the conversation around the visuals ranging from in-camera effects to use of an optical printer, matte paintings, and much, much more. I must confess I never paid much attention to the film’s sound design and Burtt manages to point out some things I never paid much attention to, from use of reverberation to placement and timing of sounds. The two’s respective topics then come together when they both breakdown both the visual and sound effects for the attempted suicide sequence, Barron offering up some onscreen visual aids on how things are layered, a technique he utilizes throughout the feature for other effect shots. I always enjoy their contributions since they clearly explain the work and how it was accomplished, and it all ends up being a brisk 27-minutes.
Robert L. Carringer had provided a visual essay for Criterion’s original LaserDisc edition, released in 1984, and he provides another one here, going over the possible meanings of “Rosebud,” including the rumoured salacious meaning it had for Hearst. The 14-minute feature also breaks out into other topics, including Welles’ dislike of Hearst and how he considered the ending “dollar store Freud,” but he couldn’t come up with anything better. Carringer even manages to link in Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus. The essay is quick and nicely edited, featuring photos, designs and what I think are storyboards alongside the narration.
To tackle the William Randolph Hearst link to the film, critic Farran Smith Nehme offers a very in-depth overview of the media tycoon’s life and the parallels it shares with Kane’s in the film. This leads her to speculate why Hearst had his sights set on Welles’ film and not other forms of art that were inspired by his life, including Aldous Huxley’s novel After Many a Summer, the portrayal of Hearst’s relationship with showgirl-turned-actress Marion Davies and her alcoholism maybe being the topic that ultimately sent Hearst into a tizzy. Hearst gets a lot of mention throughout the features, which is not at all a surprise, but I appreciated this focused inclusion that also works to break through some of the myths.
Of the new features I ended up most liking Racquel J. Gates’ contribution, which focuses on the difficulties in introducing the film to younger generations, its reputation and untouchable status as (at the very least) one of the great films being a hindrance since younger generations come to it already prepared to hate it. Gates ultimately suggests the film should be reframed a bit. Using her students as examples, she explains the differing reactions she’s seen in her attempts to appropriately frame the film, ranging from her feeling like Kane during Susan’s opening night where she’s horrified no one is enjoying it, to students getting into the film and understanding the dynamics of the Kane/Susan relationship (and I chuckled at one of the comparisons she used with students). Once the students connect, she can then start going over its strengths, why it’s considered great, and not only show the film’s technical marvels but why Welles used them in the first place. Her conversation then segues into how the film’s reputation can also harm other films from the period, or from decades before, since they can be easily looked over, bringing up how some of Kane’s technical and narrative accomplishments were seen prior, including in the silent film Within Our Gates.
Even though Gates is in no way saying the film doesn’t deserve its status, and she clearly loves the film, I have a feeling some won’t appreciate what she covers, but, to relate personally (and I have a feeling it won’t be a unique experience in my generation), when I went into the film way back I had a certain set of expectations that probably led to negatively skewing my initial viewing (on an RCA VideoDisc mind you) and it took some time and another viewing or two (on VHS) before I felt like I finally got it. The film is quite entertaining and an absolute marvel to this day, but its reputation does set up certain expectations that will probably not be met by newcomers, especially younger generations, and I thought Gates made some great points about how that can and has negatively impacted the film through the years since its rediscovery. Again, I thought this one of the stronger contributions.
Moving on, Criterion digs up their 1990 interview with director Martin Scorsese, who talks for 7-minutes about his first seeing the film (on TV in an edited form that sounds to have inexplicably cut out the newsreel opening) and how he marveled at its camera work and other technical attributes. Criterion also ports over the still photo gallery with commentary by Ebert that has appeared on previous Warner editions. The 12-minute video plays through several production stills but stops at around the 6-minute point (over a title card) while Ebert talks about the impact the film has had and its status as “greatest” film of all time, which he finds a bit silly. But he feels the film is as great as it is, despite Welles’ zero experience at the time, due to the young director just being able to get the right people to work on the film, specifically Gregg Toland. Ebert’s track is a nice little add-on to his feature commentary, which looked more at the technical aspects of the film. Sadly, this is also the only gallery Criterion has ported from the Warner releases, which also featured a few other galleries, including correspondence between various entities. The feature is also a direct port from the Warner disc and has been upscaled from standard-definition.
Also from the Warner disc is 1-minute’s worth of Pathé newsreel footage covering the opening world premiere of the film, followed by the film’s theatrical trailer, which closes off the second Blu-ray.
The third dual-layer Blu-ray, as I mentioned, features content that focuses on Welles and the Mercury Theatre specifically, only referencing Citizen Kane where appropriate. My Guest is Orson Welles is a newly created feature gathering 42-minutes’ worth of excerpts from television interviews Welles participated in through the 70’s and early 80’s, including (but not limited to) ones with Dick Cavett, Merv Griffin, and the AFI. It’s broken down into sections, from Welles’ myth building, where Welles either pushes the myths around his life or explains why he’s built up these myths (which could also be a myth) to how he would finance his films. It jumps around but is impressively edited considering the wealth of material they had to work with, having a clean and natural flow that allows Welles to tell his own story. If I had one slight annoyance with it it’s that the section around his love of magic tricks never shows a complete trick, from beginning to end, only serving up highlights. Otherwise, I thought this was a great little addition.
The final section to make use of Criterion’s 1990 interviews comes in the form of Knowing Welles, a 22-minute program featuring interviews with filmmakers Bogdanovich, Martin Ritt and Henry Jaglom, producer Frank Marshall, and cinematographer Gary Graver. Ritt and Jaglom directed Welles and talk about their experiences with him as an actor and on a personal level, Jaglom seeming to be a bit more irate on how he had been treated and perceived through the years. The other three recount working with him on The Other Side of the Wind, sharing their own stories, including how eating out with Welles meant going to the best restaurants. You also hear stories here similar to stories around the making of Citizen Kane, Gravers recounting how they shot tests that were going to end up being used in the finished film, similar to what Welles did with Kane to get around budget limitations and possible studio interference.
Next is a section devoted to actor Joseph Cotton, which presents his 3-minute speech for Welles’ AFI Lifetime Achievement Award ceremony alongside a 1966 interview with the actor. The 15-minute interview is a decent career retrospective, Cotten—who I keep forgetting was a decade older than Welles—talking about getting into acting at a late age and how Welles and Citizen Kane were the only reasons he was able to get into Hollywood. He also talks about his disappointment behind his interview scene in the film, which ended up being quickly filmed when several unfortunate circumstances led to it being hastily put together and filmed, as a “test” mind you. He hated his make-up, having to incorporate the visor to hide some obvious seams, and it ended up being the first film scene he had ever done, making him wonder if he really wanted to get into film acting. It’s an excellent find and a great interview, which ended up making me aware I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any sort of interview with the actor before.
Criterion also digs up a 21-minute interview from 1996 with actor William Alland, who of course plays Thompson in the film. Here he talks about joining the Mercury Theatre, the move to Hollywood to shoot Kane, and some of his work afterwards. As pointed out in the notes, though, Alland’s career didn’t take off like others from the troupe.
The disc then devotes a section to the Mercury Theatre and writer/producer/actor John Houseman. The first feature here is a 1988 television episode around Houseman from the program The South Bank Show. Featuring interviews with Houseman and others (including archival interviews with Welles) it provides a retrospective of his career, from when he first got into stage production and co-founding the Mercury Theatre with Welles, the move to radio, his eventual fallout with Welles over Kane, and then his late move into acting (after doing small roles here and there) with The Paper Chase, for which he won a number of awards. There’s also mentions of his Smith Barney ads, which may have cemented him as, to quote Bill Murray in Scrooged, “America’s favourite old fart.” When talking about who wrote Citizen Kane it’s worth mentioning that Houseman treats the matter delicately, as this is something that has become a very sore spot for many, including him, as I alluded to earlier. Yet he does share here what he thinks happened, and how he feels Welles perceived things. I admittedly don’t know all of the details, but I do appreciate Criterion still offering content throughout the set that comes at the topic from numerous directions.
That topic also carries on through to an 18-minute excerpt from a 1975 episode of The Merv Griffin Show, which included Welles, Houseman, and actor Robert Blake as guests. According to Houseman and Welles this would be the first time they’ve talked to each other in years, and Welles talks about burying an “imaginary hatchet.” Everything appears fine, though again, that South Bank episode 13 years later suggests its still touchy for Houseman. At the very least, the two here reminisce a bit around that earlier period with the Mercury Theatre, the radio program, and Kane, with Welles admiring how Houseman was able to just change careers and go into acting. Funny enough, the idea of Houseman performing back in the Mercury Theatre days never crossed any of their minds, and Welles has to laugh at how, out of everyone, Houseman was the only one to win an Oscar for acting.
After that, Criterion includes three radio plays recorded for the CBS radio program, The Mercury Theatre on the Air, including Dracula (53-minutes), Heart of Darkness (35-minutes), and His Honor, the Mayor (28-minutes), that last of which also advertises Welles’ then upcoming film, Citizen Kane. Audio is spotty but the first two are faithful adaptations, Dracula told from multiple perspectives, and the Heart of Darkness adaptation manages to create some vivid visuals in your head, making it a bit of shame Welles didn’t end up doing his own film adaptation.
His Honor, the Mayor is an original piece, a cautionary tale around a mayor having to deal with an assembly being put together by a group of white supremacists in his hometown, while also addressing the townsfolk who demand he stop it or let it go as planned. The mayor, who is disgusted by the group, insists he shouldn’t intervene since it’s being conducted in a public space and he has no right to stop it, but various townspeople, concerned about a rise in fascism, want no part of it. The play takes an interesting approach to the subject and doesn’t present things as black-and-white, and the characters, especially for the time, end up being far more complicated than I would have expected. It also touches on how people don’t really understand different ideologies, some characters clearly not knowing what they’re talking about, mimicking what they hear. I was also amused by how another character, accused by many of being a communist, corrects another by explaining he’s, in fact, an anarchist. It’s not perfect but I appreciated that some nuance was attempted, and Welles doesn’t play the “both sides are bad” angle; it’s clear who the villains of the story are, he just seems interested in showing how American ideals can be tricky to properly put into practice. In the end, Welles insists there’s no easy answers for the subject, but the message does ultimately seem to be that the garbage will end up taking itself out.
Closing the disc off are Welles’ actual first film, 1934’s silent feature The Hearts of Age, along with a visual essay put together by David Cairns and Randall William Cook for The Criterion Channel in 2017, Orson Welles: On the Nose. The 8-minute short film appears to be a student film, and it’s a hard one to read into. I couldn’t really make a lot of sense of it, but there are some interesting edits and visuals, and I thought the old age make-up wasn’t terrible considering what I assume would have been limited resources, though the “black face” make-up that appears doesn’t do anybody any favours (the short, which looks to come from a recent restoration, does start off with a warning about the content). The Cairns/Cook essay is a short 8-minute look at how Welles used prosthetic noses for his characters to develop them more, though some of it probably also came down Welles just not liking his own button nose. This leads to some discussion around other actors that used prosthetics and the art behind it. It’s a fun inclusion.
Finally, the set—which comes in an unfriendly fold-out package that would have been greatly improved upon if Criterion had simply put the access slots on the sleeves for the discs on the outer edges of the flaps instead of the inner ones—closes with a 42-page booklet that features an extensive essay on the film written by Bilge Ebiri. It’s an excellent essay, and one of the release’s strongest additions, Ebiri covering the film’s production, rediscovery, interpretations, and controversies in one nice friendly package. For those new to the film, it’s a must-read.
Altogether, Criterion has really knocked it out with the supplements. Due to the film’s reputation and the very fact this was Criterion’s very first title to enter the collection back in 1984, there were probably some unfair expectations around supplements, but I think Criterion has really met those expectations and then some. The features do a wonderful job of covering the film’s development and production, examine its legacy and what that might look like going ahead, and addresses the various controversies in a fair fashion. It also does a wonderful job in covering the Mercury Theatre and the troupe’s move from stage to radio to screen. It’s a hell of a collection of material.
Closing
The disc suffers from a poor HDR-to-SDR conversion, but Criterion is already addressing this and will have fixes out soon; what parts of the presentation that weren’t affected do look promising at the very least. Still, Criterion has put together a hell of a special edition when it comes to supplements, loading the three discs with a wide array of features delving into the film’s legacy.
BUY AT: | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 1 | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/ | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/batch/1/OP/A1EVAM02EL8SFB:133-8973899-9847761:47P5M46TQ8QRZP0JPSND$uedata=s:%2Fuedata%2Fuedata%3Fstaticb%26id%3D47P5M46TQ8QRZP0JPSND:0",
"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZDgyOWIwYTYtOTJmZi00NTFmLWFhYzYtNWE0Y2ZmYTBjYzRlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTYzMDM0NTU@._V1_QL75_UY281_CR4,0,190,281_.... | [] | [] | [
"Reviews",
"Showtimes",
"DVDs",
"Photos",
"User Ratings",
"Synopsis",
"Trailers",
"Credits"
] | null | [] | 1962-06-29T00:00:00 | Citizen Kane: Directed by Orson Welles. With Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Agnes Moorehead, Ruth Warrick. Following the death of publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane, reporters scramble to uncover the meaning of his final utterance: 'Rosebud.' | en | IMDb | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/ | Citizen Kane is majestic, elegant and noble. It begins at the end, we see a man of obvious wealth and power breathe his last, and then the mysteries of his life are unraveled via a series of anecdotes, barely remembered scenes and highly subjective memories. The boldness of this approach cannot be overemphasized. At the time that this film was made Hollywood was for the most part used to creating straight-forward stories with clearly identified heroes and villains. Kane dared to present Man as he is, rife with confusions, internal contradictions and uncertainty.
As the film progressed, we see Kane, loosely based on William Randolph Hearst, the famous newspaper tycoon slowly sacrifice his ideals in order to build his financial empire, losing his friendships with those who believed in him until ultimately he looses everything he has, his marriage, his friends, and his integrity. Though he is the richest man in the world he lives his remaining isolated in his privately built mountain estate where he has surrounded himself with material pleasures, alone and despairing, one senses that he welcomes death. The film takes the view that wealth and power are inherently destructive of human values. Kane himself states `If I hadn't been born rich I might have been a really great man.
What is so masterful about Kane is its ambiguity. We never are certain if Kane really did believe in the values that he professed. At the same time that he sets himself up as above the world, he longs for the affection of the common people. This is symbolized by his exploitative, and patronizing love for a chorus girl, Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore). Her character is given a paper-thin characterization, the only obvious flaw in a nearly perfect movie.
Orson Wells gives a bravura performance as Kane, both identifying with and condemning the man. This film was his first venture into movie making after the infamous War of the Worlds radio broadcast that threw America into an uproar. Wells, a child prodigy, had a background in Shakespearian theater, offering modernized adaptations of the Classics, a bold and unusual gesture at the time. He brought that kind of sweeping tragic romantic sensibility to his first film.
Unconstrained by Hollywood's traditions, he broke all the rules. The deep focus photography that gives Kane its theatrical look was one of his innovations. A mastery of sound, gained from years of working in the radio was another. Kane is an avalanche of technical innovation, unmatched in any other Hollywood film.
Despite the film's pessimistic outlook, it is studded by moments of joy, beauty and emotional truth. The supporting cast of characters, most of them regulars from Wells' Mercury Theater are also superb. Joseph Cotton is memorable as Jed Leland Kane's close friend who believes in him more then he does. And Everet Slone is wonderful as Kane's would be mentor Mr. Bernstien.
So many scenes in this movie linger forever in the memory, one is left with a stirring vision of the frailty of the human condition, the film gives us no easy answers and while being fiercely critical of many of it's characters is universal in it's compassion and sympathy, this is perhaps the most vital ingredient for great art.
Kane was one of the most controversial films ever made. Hearst, offended by his portrayal, offered RKO a small fortune to destroy the film. When that didn't work his newspapers embarked on a campaign of defamation against Wells, thus proving that the film's criticism of the power and corruption of the press were precisely on target. Wells was never given a free hand to direct how he liked again and American Cinema was deprived of the one of the greatest geniuses to adopt it as a medium of self-expression.
It's influence, was immediate, incalculable and mostly unacknowledged, the film was a box office and critical failure due to Hearst's efforts and it was not until years later that this film got the respect it deserved. Nowadays there is not one living film director of serious artistic intent that has not been deeply influenced by Citizen Kane. It's not just a masterpiece it's a creative touchstone.
Of course there were other talents at work in making Kane, Hermann Mankiewicz's efforts on the script were indispensable and Bernard Hermann, the composer most famous for working with Hitchcock provided the films beautiful music. Still, the film remains most obviously the work of Orson Wells, a veritable hall of mirrors reflecting the great artist's dreams, obsessions and fears. Citizen Kane is not just one of the great works of cinema it is one of the greatest artistic creations of the century | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 28 | https://18cinemalane.com/2023/07/25/take-3-rko-281-1999-review/ | en | Take 3: RKO 281 (1999) Review | [
"https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/cropped-sign-design-1.png",
"https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/rko-281-1999-poster.jpg?w=726",
"https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/10316-e1582573889902.jpg?w=640",
"https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/citiz... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2023-07-25T00:00:00 | Once upon a time, in 2019, I saw Citizen Kane for the first time. In my review of the film, and even in my list of ten classic movies I watched because of my blog, I stated how, in my opinion, Citizen Kane is not the flawless masterpiece almost everyone has made it out to… | en | 18 Cinema Lane | https://18cinemalane.com/2023/07/25/take-3-rko-281-1999-review/ | Once upon a time, in 2019, I saw Citizen Kane for the first time. In my review of the film, and even in my list of ten classic movies I watched because of my blog, I stated how, in my opinion, Citizen Kane is not the flawless masterpiece almost everyone has made it out to be. As you’re reading this introduction, you’re probably wondering, “What does Citizen Kane have to do with July’s theme of Genre Grandeur? That movie isn’t about making movies”. No, it’s not. But the 1999 HBO movie, RKO 281, is. While looking for a title to review for the aforementioned blogathon, I stumbled upon RKO 281, a film I had never heard of prior to the event. When I learned the movie was about the creation of Citizen Kane, I knew I’d appreciate the 1999 project, especially since I saw and wrote about the 1941 film. It also gave me a reason to check out one of HBO’s made-for-tv titles. So, without any delay, let’s start this show of my RKO 281 review!
Things I liked about the film:
The acting: When we think about a name like Orson Welles, it can sometimes be easy to think of him as more than just a man with a dream. As Orson’s name became a staple of cinematic history, it also became what legends are made of. But Liev Schreiber, the actor portraying Orson, brought humanity back to that name, finding the heart of the “genius” and putting some genuine emotion behind it. While apologizing to Herman Mankiewicz after a falling-out between them, Orson shares a personal recollection about his father. After sharing a part of his soul with his friend, a smile appears on Orson’s face, relieved Herman has agreed to work on Citizen Kane. At the same time, you can see a tear has escaped Orson’s eye. This gives another meaning to Orson’s relief; the burdens of guilt and regret have lifted off his shoulders.
Liev Schreiber is not the only actor to use facial expressions and emotion to their advantage. Portraying William Randolph Hearst, James Cromwell was able to use these tools of acting to present William as more than just the story’s antagonist. When he finds out Citizen Kane is based on him, William is upset by this news. While talking about the situation with a woman named Louella, there is a sharpness to his voice, clearly indicating his bitterness toward the film. But the look in his eyes is that of defeat, questioning how someone was able to successfully build a bridge across the moat of his castle. In this scene, William’s face told more than dialogue could share; a man who gave everyone the impression he was in control, but was really unsure of what the future held.
Marion Davies was the mistress of William Randolph Hearst. Introduced to the audience in a party scene, Marion carried herself with a bubbly personality, almost being mistaken for “ditzy”. But Melanie Griffith prevented Marion from becoming a stereotype or caricature. With a variety of emotions, body language, and facial expressions, Melanie showed Marion as, simply, a woman in a complicated situation. One of my favorite scenes in RKO 281 was when Marion confronted William about his spending habits. Though in a drunken state, Marion addresses some excellent points. As she faces William, her voice is pleading. The desperation in Marion’s voice contains brutal honesty, giving her tone of voice some depth. She never breaks eye contact with William, showing how she isn’t afraid of standing up to “Pops”. Even though she does raise her voice, she only does this to emphasis her points. This scene elaborates how easily someone like Marion could be underestimated. While William saw Marion’s part of their conversation as “excessively theatrical”, I saw it as a woman who knew more about the situation than others were led to believe.
The set design: I’ve heard Hollywood referred to as the “Land of Dreams”. If that’s true, then the set design in RKO 281 was meant to visually represent a fairy tale! William Randolph Hearst’s castle is one of the most divine sets I’ve ever seen! So many details went into this location, it makes every space of the castle feel larger than life. From the marble fireplace held up by carved marble statues, to the large stained-glass windows boasting intricate colorful designs, to even a bath room with blue and green hued walls, William’s castle is a place beyond imagination. While the castle certainly stole the show, there were other sets that looked great on camera. During RKO 281, Orson travels to New York. In a scene showcasing Orson’s hotel room, his large, wooden bed was smartly paired with a red and beige blanket. The bed isn’t the only wooden piece of furniture in the room, as the desk, matching bedside tables, and even the walls display a warm shade of wood. Because of the tall window, the illusion of the room having a high ceiling is given to the audience. Filling the room with warm light from the lamps and the wall sconces, this high-end hotel room gave off a cozy atmosphere!
The film-making process: One of my favorite episodes of Murder, She Wrote is ‘Film Flam’. Watching the process of premiering a film is what made that episode fascinating to me. RKO 281 showed a similar process in their story. But this time, the entire film-making process was revealed. Glimpses of how Citizen Kane was made were woven into RKO 281. I learned some things about Citizen Kane because the film-making process was shown. For instance, I didn’t know Orson dug a hole into the floor just to get the shot he wanted. I also didn’t know that filming of Citizen Kane started two days ahead of schedule. It was interesting to see the various components that go into creating a film, especially during a time when technology wasn’t at a film-maker’s disposal. This peek behind Hollywood’s curtain can make one appreciate the work that goes into making a movie.
The dialogue: There is a lot of work that goes into writing a script. One important area of any script is the creation and delivery of dialogue. As I’ve said in past reviews, dialogue can be hit or miss, especially in a made-for-tv movie. In RKO 281, you can tell there was thought put into the dialogue of the script. In fact, I would go so far as to say the dialogue was, at times, profound. Remember when I said one of my favorite scenes was when Marion confronted William about his spending habits? One of the reasons why I like that scene is because of how well the dialogue was written and delivered. During the confrontation between Marion and William, Marion reminds him of the difference between wanting and needing something. She elaborates on this point by questioning how much a nearby statue cost, not caring about details such as where it was made or the style of the statue, details only William would bring up. Even at the very beginning of this scene, when Marion says, “Millions of dollars a year on art and statues, and there is nothing to explain” illustrates how Marion recognizes the severity of the situation. Meanwhile, as William responds to Marion by stating, “We are in no pickle, as you so euphemistically put it”, the script emphasizes William’s choice to use big words to not only belittle Marion’s intelligence, but also brush his problems under the rug.
What I didn’t like about the film:
The omission of the Breen Code: If you’ve read my movie reviews, you’d sometimes see the term ‘Breen Code’ mentioned in the text. For those unfamiliar with this concept, the Breen Code is a set of moral guidelines that had to be applied to film-making. Movies released between 1934 and 1954 formed the Breen Code era. Because Citizen Kane was released in 1941, I was hoping the Breen Code would play a role in the process of Citizen Kane’s creation. Unfortunately, the Breen Code wasn’t even mentioned. To me, the Breen Code is an underrated component in cinematic history. It would have been nice to hear it referenced in RKO 281’s dialogue.
Some parts of the story not receiving closure: Louella Parsons works for William Randolph Hearst as his “eyes and ears of Hollywood”. After she sees a rough cut of Citizen Kane, she informs William about the film resembling his life. Louella vows to get revenge against Orson for creating the movie, even going so far as to use blackmail in an attempt to cancel the film. But when William’s financial troubles come to light, her role in William’s life seems to have diminished. What happened to Louella after William’s financial situation was made public? Did she still work for him or did she end up working for someone else? This is just one part of RKO 281 that didn’t receive closure.
Keeping track of who’s who: As I mentioned in this review’s introduction, RKO 281 chronicles the creation of Citizen Kane. Therefore, the story follows those individuals connected to the project itself. Throughout the movie, though, members of the film industry from the late 1930s to the early 1940s were brought up in the dialogue. While I was familiar with some of these people, other names I did not recognize. It almost felt like RKO 281’s creative team expected the audience to know the film industry scene of that time. When I watch a film, I want to be told a story. If I end up learning something valuable by watching a movie, I feel that is time well spent. However, I don’t want to feel like I need to do homework prior to watching the film.
My overall impression:
Not all made-for-tv movies are created equal. Sometimes, a low amount of effort will be given to a made-for-tv production, making a presentation look and feel cheap. But there are made-for-tv projects that are solid, despite the limited resources and finances. RKO 281 is so well-made, it is easy to forget this is an HBO film, as this movie looked and felt theatrical! The creative team behind RKO 281 went above and beyond to make their project the best it could be! From the actors and the screenwriters to the set designers, every person involved with the 1999 movie stepped up their A game and it shows. The style and substance of RKO 281 go hand in hand. While I still don’t believe Citizen Kane is a flawless masterpiece, I’ve gained an appreciation for the efforts it took to make this film exist at all. Toward the end of RKO 281, Orson says “Pretty speeches make history”. If that’s true, then good films leave a lasting impression.
Overall score: 8 out of 10
Have you seen RKO 281 or Citizen Kane? Are there any HBO movies you’d like to see me review? Tell me in the comment section below!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 53 | https://www.metacritic.com/movie/citizen-kane-1941/user-reviews/ | en | Citizen Kane user reviews | [
"https://www.metacritic.com/a/neutron/images/logos/imdb_logo.png",
"https://www.metacritic.com/a/neutron/images/logos/imdb_logo.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Metacritic aggregates music, game, tv, and movie reviews from the leading critics. Only Metacritic.com uses METASCORES, which let you know at a glance how each item was reviewed. | en | https://www.metacritic.com/movie/citizen-kane-1941/user-reviews/ | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 51 | https://archive.org/stream/bulletinissues00agrigoog/bulletinissues00agrigoog_djvu.txt | en | Full text of "Bulletin" | [
"https://archive.org/services/img/etree",
"https://archive.org/services/img/librivoxaudio",
"https://archive.org/services/img/metropolitanmuseumofart-gallery",
"https://archive.org/services/img/clevelandart",
"https://archive.org/services/img/internetarcade",
"https://archive.org/services/img/consolelivin... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | https://archive.org/details/bulletinissues00agrigoog | See other formats
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Usage guidelines Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes. + Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web at http : //books . google . com/| Bulletin Pennsylvania. Dept. of Agriculture Digitized by VjOOQIC Digitized by VjOOQIC Digitized by VjOOQIC Digitized by VjOOQIC Digitized by VjOOQIC Digitized by VjOOQIC Digitized by VjOOQIC CommoiUotattli of ^enngpltonto. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BULLETIN No. 210 PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE Pennsi|>lbania ^tate 2^oarb of Agriculture HELD IN THE BOARD OF TRADE BUILDING, HARRISBURG, PA. January 24, 25 and 26. 1911 HARRISBURG: C. B. AUOHINBAUOH. PHINTBR TO THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 1911 Digitized by VjOOQiC ^ci I C>2> 8.Z .5 , ^ - Harvard CoUegre Librarj 2 "^ V May 27. 1912 ' Gift of PennBylvania 8tate Library Digitized by VjOOQIC SUMMARY OF CONTENTS Page. Members State Board of Agriculture, 5 Proceedings Annual Meettpg State Board of Agriculture, 9 Report of Committee on Cereals and Cereal Crops, J. Miles Derr 10 Report of Committee on Feeding Stuffs, G. G. Hutchison, 17 Report of Committee on Credentials, 38 Report of Committee on Fruit and Fruit Culture, D. A. Knuppenburg. . . 41 Report on Forests and Forestry, Robert Conklin, 43 Report of Agricultural Geologist, W. H. Stout, 50 Agriculture in Public Schools, S. S. Blyholder 60 Address of Governor Tener, 65 Production and Care of Barnyard Manure, R. C. E. Wallace, 67 Joint Meeting of the Board of Agriculture, Breeders* Association and Dairy Union, ^ 72 Permanent Pastures and Meadows, W. D. Zinn, 73 The Pennsylvania Stallion Law, Dr. C. J. Marshall, 81 Report of Committee on Poultry, W. Thco. Wittman, 89 Report of Committee on Fertilizers, A. T. Holman, 92 Report of Committee on Wool and Cotton Fibres, D. S. Taylor, 94 Report of Committee on Dairy and Dairy Products, M. E. Conard 97 Election of Officers, 105 Address of General Beaver, 109 Growing Potatoes, T. B. Martin, 112 Report of the Apiarist, H. C. Klinger, 122 Address of Mr. Selser, 125 Report of the Mineralogist, Baird Halberstadt, 133 Report of the Ornithologist, Prof. H. A. Surface, 142 Report of the Entomologist, Prof. Franklin Menges, 149 Some Fundamental Principles in Fertility Maintenance, R. C. E. Wal- lace, 152 Report of the Botanist, Prof. W. A. Buckhout 160 Report of the Economic Geologist, Dr. Isaac A. Harvey, 162 The Peat Beds of Northern Pennsylvania, Dr. Wm. Frear, 168 Report of the Microscopist and Hygienist, Prof. J. W. Kellogg, 177 Report of the Pomologist, Gabriel Hiester, 181 Report of the Memorial Committee, 184 Report of Executive Committee (see page 7), 186 Report of Committee on Legislation, 187 Tile Drainage, T. E. Martin, 197 Report of Committee on Resolutions, 205 (») Digitized by VjOOQIC (4) Digitized by VjOOQIC MEMBERS OF THm pennsylvania State Board of Agriculture FOff THE YEAR 1911 MEMBERS EX'OFFtO/O HON. JOHN K. TENBR, Governor. HON. HENRY HOUCK, Secretary of Internal Affairs. DR, N. C. SCHAEPFER, Superintendent of Public Instruction. DR, EDWIN EARLE SPARKS, President of the State College HON. A. E. SISSON, Auditor General. HON. N. B. CRITCHPIELD. Secretary of Agrlciilture. APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR R. I. Young, Middletown, Dauphin County, Term expires J 911 R. H. Thomas, Jr., Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County Term expires 1912 Gen. James A. Beaver, Bellefonte, Centre County, Term expires 1913 APPOINTED BY THE STATE POULTRY ASSOCIATION J. D. NevluB, Philadelphia 1910 APPOINTED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA BRANCH OP THE AMERICAN POULTRY ASSOCIATION W. Theo. Wittman Allentown, 1913 ELECTED BY COUNTY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETIES Term expires. Adams, A. I. Weidner, Arendstville 1912 Allegheny A. J. Purdy, Imoerial. R. F. D. No. 1, ..1912 Armstrong, S. S. Blyholder, .... Kelly Station 1914 Beaver A. L. McKibben, . . . New Sheffield, 1914 Bedford David W. Lee, Bedford 1912 Berks, H. G. McGowan, Geiger's Mills, 1913 Blair, W. Frank Beck Altoona 1914 Bradford F. D. Kerrlck Towanda. 1918 Bocks, B. Frank Wambold, . . Sellersville 1914 Botler, W. H. Milliron, Euclid, Digitized by CjOOQIC 6 Term epiree. Cambria, Jas. Weatrick, Patton, R. F. D. No. 2, 1913 Cameron, OarboB < • •••••«« •••• Centre/ !./..! . . . . ! . ! John A. Woodward, . Howardi . . . . . '. *. 1912 Chester, M. E. Conard, Westgrove, 1912 Clarion, J. H. Wilson, Clarion. 1913 Clearfield, Peter Gearhart, Clearfield, 1913 Clinton, J. A. Herr. Millhall, R. F. D., 1914 Columbia, A. P. Young, MUlviUe, 1912 Crawford, J. S. Patton, Hartstown, 1914 Cumberland, Dauphin, Edward S. Keiper, . .Middletown, 1914 Delaware, E. J. Durnall, Swarthmore, 1914 Elk, John M. Witman, St. Mary's, 1911 Erie Fayette, Franklin, . . . . . . . ! ! !! John* P." Young* *!!*.. Marion, ....... ......*...*.*. .1914 Fulton, J. L. Patterson, .... McConnellsburg, 1913 Qrtene, N. M. Biddle, Carmichaels, 1918 Huntingdon, Geo. G. Hutchison, . . Warrior's Mark, 1912 Indiana, S. C. George, West Lebanon, 1913 Jefferson, Peter B. Cowan, .... Brookville, 1913 Juniata, Matthew Rodders, . . . Mexico, 1912 Lackawanna Horace Seamans, Factory ville, 1913 Lancaster, J. Aldus Herr Lancaster, 1914 Lawrence, Sylvester Shaffer, . . . New Castle, 1913 Lebanon, H. C. Suavely, Cleona 1913 Lehigh, P. S. Fenstermaker, . Allentown, 1912 Luzerne, J. C. Hildebrant, . . Dallas R. F. D 1914 Lycoming, A. J. Kahler, Hughesville, 1912 McKean O. W. Abbey, TurUe Point, 1913 Mercer, W. C. Black, Mercer 1914 Mifflin, M. M. Naginey, ....Milroy, 1913 Monroe, F. S. Brong, Saylorsburg, 1913 Montgomery, John H. Schultz, .... Norristown, 1914 Montour, J. Miles Derr, Milton, R. F. D., 1913 Northampton, C. S. Messinger, Tatamy 1912 Northumberland, I. A. Eschbach, Milton, R. F. D., 1914 Perry, A. T. Holman, Millerstown, 1913 Philadelphia, David Rust, Philadelphia, 1913 Pike, Potter. Schuylkill, John Shoener, New Ringgold 1913 Snyder, Somerset, John C. Weller, . . . .Rockwood, 1914 Sullivan, J. G. Colts, Campbellsville, 1914 Susquehanna, .Frank A. Davies, Montrose, 1913 Tioga Calvin H. DeWitt, ..Mansfield, 1914 Union, J. Newton Glover, . . Vicksburg, 1914 Venango, Warren, R. J. Weld Sugarerove, 1914 Washington, D. S. Taylor, Burgettstown, 1914 Wayne, Warren E. Perham, . . Pleasant Mount, 1914 Westmoreland M. P. Shoemaker, . . Greensburg, 1913 Wyoming, D. A. Knuppenburg,. . Lake Carey 1913 York G. F. Barnes Rossville 1914 Digitized by VjOOQIC OFFiOERS PRESIDENT Hon. John K. Tener, Governor, Harrisburg. VICE PRESIDENTS Geo. G. Hutchison, Warrior's Mark. A. J. Kahl«r, Hugh«sville. Peter Gearhart, Cl«arfield. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Dr. M. £. Conard, Chairman, Westgrove. Dr. W. Frank Beck, Altoona. J. A. Herr, Millhall, R. F. D. Matthew Rodgers, Mexico. F. D. Kerrick Towanda. M. M. Naginey Milroy. D. A. Knuppenburg, Lake Carey. R. J. Weld, Sugargrove. A. P. Young, Millville. N. B. Critctifield, Secretary, Harrisburg. ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CONSULTING SPECIALISTS AND STANDING COMMITTEES AS REPORTED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. ADVISORY COMMITTEE Matthew Rodgers, Mexico. J. A. Herr, Millhall, R. F. D. M. M. Naginey, Milroy. N. B. Critchfleld, Secretary Harrisburg. CONSULTING SPECIALISTS BoUnist, Prof. W. A. Buckhout, State College. Pomologist, Gabriel Hiester, Harrisburg. Chemist, Dr. Wm. Frear, State College. Veterinary Surgeon, Dr. C. J. Marshall, Harrisburg. Sanitarian, Dr. W. H. Banks, Miffiintown. Microcopist and Hygienist, . . . Prof. J. W. Kellogg, Harrisburg. Entomologist, Prof. Franklin Menges York. Ornithologist, Prof. H. A. Surface, Harrisburg. Meterologist, E. R. Demain, Harrisburg. Mineralogist Baird Halberstadt, Pottsville. Apiarist, H. C. Klinger, Liverpool. Economic Geologist, Dr. Isaac A. Ilar^^ey Lock Haven. Agricultural Geologist W. H. Stout, Pinegrove. Forests and Forestry, Robert Conklin Harrisburg. Feeding Stuffs GO. Hutchison Warriors Mark Digitized by VjOOQIC 8 STANDING COMMITTEES LEGISLATION Hon. H. G. McGowan. Chairman Geiger's Mills. P. Gearhart, Clearneld. Matthew Rodgers, Mexico. 8. S. Blyholder, Kelly Station. Hon. H. C. Snavely Cleona. CEREALS AND CEREAL CROPS J. Miles Derr, Chairman Milton. ROADS AND ROAD LAWS J. C. Weller, Chairman, Rockwood. FRUIT AND FRUIT CULTURE J. P. Young. Chairman, Marlon. DAIRY AND DAIRY PRODUCTS M. E. Conard, Chairman West Grove. FERTILIZERS J. H. Shultz, Chairman Xorristown. WOOL AND TEXTILE FIBERS A. L. McKlbben. Chairman. New Sheffield. LIVESTOCK A. P. Young, Chairman. Mlllvllle. POULTRY W. Theo. Wlttman, Chairman, AUentown. Digitized by VjOOQIC PROOEEDtNGS OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD OF AGRICUL- TURE. HELD IN THE BOARD OF TRADE BUILDING. HARRISBURG. PA.. JANUARY 2A. 23 AND 26. 1911. Harrisburg, Pa., January 24, 1911, 9 A. M. Vice President S. S. Blyholder in the Chair. The CHAIKMAN: The Board will please come to order, and the Secretary will call the roll. The roll of members was then called by the Secretary and at this and subsequent roll calls the following persons answered : R. I. Young, R. H. Thomas, Jr., Gen. James A. Beaver, W. Theo. Wittman, A. I. Weidner, A. J. Purdy, S. S. Blyholder, A. L. Mc- Kbben, David W. Lee, H. G. McGowan, W. Frank Beck, F. D. Kerrick, B. Frank Wambold, John A. Woodward, M. E. Conard, Peter Gearhart, J. A. Herr, A. P. Young, J. F. Seavy, E. J. Durnall, John P. Young, George G. Hutchison, Peter B. Cowan, Matthew Rodgers, Horace Seamans, J. Aldus Herr, Sylvester Shaffer, H. C. Snavely, A. J. Kahler, W. C. Black, M. M. Naginey, F. S. Brong, J. H. Shultz, J. Miles Derr, C. S. Messinger, I. A. Eschbach, A. T. Holman, John Shoener, John C. Weller, E. R. Warburton, J. Newton Glover, R. J. Weld, Warren E. Perham, M. P. Shoemaker, D. A. Knuppenburg and G. F. Barnes. Ex-oflBcio members: Hon. John K. Tener, Governor, Dr. N. C. Schaeffer, Superinten- dent of Public Instruction, Dr. Edwin Earle Sparks, President of the State College and Hon. N. B. Critchfield, Secretary of Agriculture. The following Consulting Specialists were also in attendance: Gabriel Hiester, Pomologist; Prof. J. W. Kellogg, Microscopist and Hygienist; Prof. Franklin Menges, Entomologist; Prof. H. A. Surface, Ornithologist; Baird Halberstadt, Mineralogist; W. H. Stout, Agricultural Geologist; G. G. Hutchison, Feeding Stuffs. The SECRETARY: (After calling of roll) There is a quorum present, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN: We are now ready to proceed with the read- ing of the minutes. The Secretary will now read the minutes of the Spring Meeting of the State Board of Agriculture, held in Butler, Pa., Tuesday, May 24, 1910. The minutes were then read by the Secretary. The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the reading of the minutes. Are there any corrections? Digitized by GoOQle MR. HUTCHISON: Mr. Chairman, 1 move the minutes be i-e ceived and approved. MR. R. I. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I second the motion. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: I will appoint the Committee on Credentials as follows: Matthew Rodgers, of Juniata County; D. A. Knuppen- burg, of Wyoming County; M. M. Naginey, of Miflflin County; Peter Qearhart, of Clearfield County, and E. R. Warburton of Sullivan County. The Chairman of the Committee will please come forward and receive the credentials already handed in. If there are any other credentials to hand in before we proceed with the regular program turn them over to the Chairman of the Credential Committee now. MR. RODGERS, Chairman of the Credential Committee: The members of the Credential Committee will please retire with me now to the ante-room to act on the credentials presented. The CHAIRMAN: We are now ready to take up the reports of the Standing Committees and Specialists. The first on the pro- gram is the Report of the Committee on Cereals and Cereal Crops, J. Miles Derr, Chairman, Milton, Penna. This report was then read by Mr. Derr ns follows: REPORT OP THE COMMITTEE ON CEREALS AND CEREAL CROPS. By J. MIL'SS DERR, Chairman. The production of cereals and cereal crops may be considered the greatest industry of the present day. On account of its importance to all classes of people it should receive a great deal of considera- tion. We have in our country several million acres of as fine land as ever kissed by the sun or tickled with a hoe. One crop from tlie farms of our great country would pay for all the railroad property of the United States. Corn. Let us consider a few of the leading cereals produced in the United States: "Com is King," and has been properly named on account of its importance as a feed and value of the product. It is by far the most valuable cereal we raise. Our corn crop is worth more every year than all we get from our gold, silver and lead mines. It has been estimated that our corn crop is worth more than twice as much as our wheat crop. Our annual corn crop averages more than two billion bushels of shelled com every year. Corn is raised in nearly every part of the United States. Ohio ha» the highest nvornpfo ]>or noro, nhont forty-fw'^o bushels; Pennsylvani.'i third 11 and Florida lowe«t, about eleven bushels per acre. More than one half of our corn crop comes from the seven great states : Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Indiana and Ohio. This is the greatest com patch on the face of the earth. It produces more than one billion bushels of corn every year, or more than one-half our com crop. Can we realize how much corn one billion bushels is. Suppose it would be loaded upon wagons, forty bushels of shelled com to a wagon, and driving the teams so that the noses of each team would just reach the tailboard of the wagon in front of it, making a continuous train of wagons more than one hundred and ftf ty thousand miles long, or long enough to reach six times around the world. These seven states produce about one-half of our corn crop, and if we want to know how many wagons it would take io carry a whole crop, multiply the number by two. WTiat is done with this immense crop of corn? About nineteen twentieth of it is fed to stock in this country. About one twentieth is shipped to Europe. Com is the chief food of about forty million bogs raised annually in this country. Wheat. Winter wheat may be considered second in value and importance. Wheat is one of the most important grains known to man. It has l)een used for ages by the people of the Old World. Wheat was not known in this hemisphere before the time of Columbus, and our continent now produces more wheat than any other grand divis- ion of the globe. The United States as a nation takes the lead in the production of wheat. A large percentage of the people of Europe eat bread made from our wheat. Millions of bushels of this grain every year cross the Atlantic, and, with the exception of cot- ton, we get more for our wheat from foreign countries than any other crop. Wheat is grown in nearly all parts of the United States, but our best wheat lands lie north of the Ohio and Missouri i-ivers. Let us note some facts about one of the largest wheat farms in our country: On a certain wheat farm in North Dakota there are two hundred and fifty pairs of work horses and mules, two hundred plows, one hundred and fifteen harvesting machines, and twenty threshing machines run by steam. When the grain is ripe, four hundred men are employed to harvest it, and at the time of threshing there are six hundred men at work. Some of the fields contain 500 acres each. The men working in them labor in companies, under mounted over seers. In plowing the ground, scores of sulky plows, driven by men who sit on the plows, will move across the field together, plowinjr several acres each round. Harvesting on these big farms is a wonderful sight. On such a faiTU as the one being described, the work of cutting and threshing is done at the same time by a combined harvester and thresher. Some of these great machines are drawn by steam engines ; others by teams of twenty-five to thirty horses or mules. A single machine with four men will gather and thresh from seventeen hundred to three thou sand bushels of wheat in a day. The next question is. How is the whent inred for nftei- it leavrs •''«fl«'^«'- Digitized by Google 12 This is almost as great a business as raising the wheat. At some of the railroad stations in the wheat belt, and at all the large grain ports of the United States, there are large elevators, or granaries, used for storing the grain until it is wanted for sale. A single elevator often has storage room for more than a million bushels of grain. The elevators at Minneapolis alone can hold almost thirty million bushels air one time. The great wheat crop and the location at the head of navigation on the Mississippi River has caused two thriving commercial citien to be built, knowTi as tJie "Twin Cities of the Northwest" — Minne- apolis and St. Paul. They contain some of the finest business blocks in our country. The two cities now almost join, although their business centers are about ten miles apart. I have just described fhe greatest belt in the United States, and yet their average yield per acre would not satisfy many of our Pennsylvania farmers who are accustomed to having average yields of twenty bushels per acre, and I have in mind plots of 15 acres and more yielding an average of thirty-two bushels per acre. Oats. The oats crop of the country ranks third in importance. We pro- duce about one billion bushels annually and it is worth three hun- dred million dollars. Oats are produced in every state and terntory in the United States. Iowa leads in the number of acres sown, Arizona the lowest. Utah leads in the average number of bushels per acre, being about forty-three bushels per acre, and Florida the lowest, with fourteen bushels per acre. Iowa produces the greatest number of bushels. Florida has the highest price per bushel, South Dakota the lowest. Other Products. Next in importance is barley. California leads in total number of bushels produced, with about thirty-seven million bushels. Cali- fornia also leads in the number of dollars to her credit. Rye comes next in importance. All but ten of the states and territories produce rye. Michigan leads in number of acres. Idaho produces most bushels per acre. Pennsylvania leads in total number of bushels. South Carolina has the highest average price per bushel, being one dollar and a quarter. Pennsylvanoa leads in the total value of rye, having to her credit about three and one-half million dollars. Buckwheat is a very important crop, for several reasons: It is a <iuick crop and is in demand as soon as harvested; it can be l)r()duced on land that will not produce wheat, corn or oats suc- cessfully. Buckwheat is grown in twenty-four states. New York leads with 321,552 acres. Maine has the highest number of bushels per acre, about twenty-seven bushels, and Iowa the lowest, twelve bushels per acre. New York is the banner buckwheat state, her crop annually being worth tliree and one-half million dollars, or about one-third of the value of the buckwheat crop of the United States. Flax, another important crop, is raised in this country for the seed which is manufactured into oil and meal. About two and one- half million acres are producing flax with an average of a little more than ten bushels per acre, lu some sections during 1910 tiaxseed was worth two and yne-hall* dollars per bushel. In the production of flax, North Dakota leads in number of acres, the total number of bushels -and value of its crop amounts to nearly fifteen million dollars. Rice IS produced in nine or ten slates, with Louisiana leading in number of acres, 308,000. the }a:reatest number of bushels and the largest total value, being nearly eight million dollars, which is about »me-half the value of our whole cro]). The Unite<l States Department of Agi'icuKure reports the total production of com at 3,125,713,000 bushels as compared with 2J72,- 376,000 bushels for 1909, 27.4 bushels average per acre for 1910 as compared with 25.5 bushels the ten year average. These figures seem large, and it is hard to realize how enormous they are, yet the latest census report showing the great increase in the population of our country,*and especially, tlie alarming increase in our cities, makes it apparent that the greatest problem before the farmers of our fair country at the present time is the conservation of soil fertility, and its economical increase. Another half century of the reckless «ind wasteful manner of using the soil, as has been done in nearly all sections of our coimtry, will see the highest cost of living that has ever afflicted any nation. The United Stales report gives a comprehensive view of the crop of this country. One of our local papers gives a little better idea of the intensive farming of Pennsvlvania. It is as follows: -GREAT FARM STATE. PENNSYLVANIA LEADS ALL THE OTHERS IN INTENSIVE FARMING. PRODUCED FIVE PER CENT. OF THE CROP VALUE ON LESS THAN FOUR PER CENT. OF THE ACREAGE. That the State of Pennsylvania is leader in intensive farming, the doctrine of which is being preached by the State College and the Pennsylvania railroad, is indicated by statistics just compiled by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for 1910 which show that Pennsylvania last year had 8,3S4,000 acres in <ultivation in corn, barley, buckwheat, hay, oats, potatoes, rye, to- bacco and wheat. This is 3.503 per cent, of the total of 239,3'43.800 acres under cultivation in these crops in the United States, and Ihe average value per acre in the State of Pennsylvania Mas f20.50 as compared with |14.53 for the average value per acre throughout the country. These figures are of special interest to the Pennsylvania Railroad, which in the past four years has been conducting an active campaign in the interests of scientific farming. Much instructive literature has l)een disseminated by the railroad company in pamphlet form, while farmers' special educational trains have been operated on various divisions from time to time. In this work the railroad com- pany is co-operating with the State Agricultural Department and the State College of Agriculture. The Pennsylvania railroad recently announced that it had found its farming campaign a profitable one and that it intended to prosecute it vigorously during the present winter. Arrangements are being made for demonstrati<ins and lec- tures to be given in various parts of the State r»f Pennsylvania. The country's total farm crop value of barley, buckw^heat, corn, hay, oats, potatoes, rye, tobacco and wheat in 1910 was $3,478,417,773 and Penn- sylvania's share of this was fl72,362,500, or approximately ^ve per cent, of the total, with only 3.5 per cent, of the a<?reager^ Ad^ad 14 interest is given to these tigures in view of the fact that in 1909 Penngylvania's acreage in the above crops w^s 3.547 per cent, of the total of the country, with the percentage of the farm crop value for Pennsylvania of 4.311, compared with 1910, Pennsylvania's per- centage of acreage decreased, but her percentage of the revenue in these crops increased. MR. J. A. HERR: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that the report be re- ceived and placed on file for publication with the proceedings of the Board. The motion was seconded and agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: The next on the program is the Report of the Committee on Roads and Road Laws, H. C. Suavely, Chairman, Cleona, Penna. The SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, 1 have a letter from Mr. Suavely that came in just a little while ago. It is addressed to me personally. Shall I read it? The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will please read the letter. The Secretary read Mr. Snavely's letter as follows: "Cleona, Pa., Jan. 23, 1911. Hon. N. B. Critchfield, Harrisburg, Penna. Dear Sir: I have beeu confined to bed and to the house since Thursday night when I took sick rather suddenly. My coming to Harrisburg tonight or tomorrow will depend u[)on rhe advice of the doctor when he comes to see me this P. M. I wish also to say that I have not written a report as Chairman ;)f Committee of Roads and Road Laws. I had written to a number of members of the Board and others for their views, but receiving only a few replies I deferred the matter until my return home last week when I took ill. f would be very sorry if I would miss all the meetings this week. Yours trulv, HENRY C. SNAVELY. • The CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, you have heard the communica- tion. What action will you take? If there are no objections we will proceed and enter it upon the journal of oui' proceedings. The SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, I have another letter here from Mr. Cowan, also addressed to me personally. The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will please read Brother Cow an's communication. The Secretary read Mr. (rowan's letter as follows: "Brookville, Pn., Jan. 23, 191J. Hon. N. B. Critchfield, Secretary of Agriculture, Harrisburg, Pa. My dear Sir: Owing to the death of a dear sister, I will be uji able to attend the early sessions of the Stale Board of Agriculture, but will try to reach there some time Wednesday, 25. Trusting the meeting will be a pleasant and profitable one, I re- main, ir» The CHATKMA>«: Tlie euJiimuBicaliuii will be received nnd en- tered upon the journal of our proeeedin$2;s. The SECRETAEY: Mr. Chairman, I have also received a letter from Mr. Fenstermaker, addressed to me personally. The CHAIRMAN: The Secretary will please read Brother Fen- stermaker's letter. The Secretary read Mr. Fenstermaker's letter as follows: "Allen town, Pa., Jan. 23, 1911. Hon. N. B. Critchfield, Harrisburg, Pa. My dear Sir: The very sudden and unexpected death of our be- loved daughter Anna, aged 22 years, has made it impossible for me to attend your great meetings. Overcome with grief and cares, allow me to predict that these meetings with your most excellent program of a feast of good things can not but help to produce results in creating a more intense interest for better agriculture. Kindly convey my regrets to the members of the State Board and oblige. Very sincerely vours, P. S. FENSTERMAKER." The CHAIRMAN^ The communication will be received and en- tered upon the journal of our proceedings. MR. HUTCHISON: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Secretary be directed to reply to the letter of Brother Fenstermaker, extending our sympathies in this said hour of bereavement. The motion was seconded and agreed to. The SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a telegram in expectation of this. I felt every assurance that somebody would make the motion, and the telegram that I propose to send, if ap- proved, is as follows: "The Hon. P. S. Fenstermaker, Allentown, Penna. At the Annual Meeting of the State Board of Agriculture, now assembled, the society unanimously voted that we extend to our co-workef, Hon. P. S. Fenstermaker, of Allentown, Pa., the expres- sion of our sympathy in the time of such bereavement that has so suddenly fallen upon his home." The CHAIRMAN: Without any further motion the Secretary, by direction of the Board, will forward that message. The CHAIRMAN: The next on the program is the Report of the Committee on Fruit and Fruit Culture, D. A. Knuppenburg, Lake Carey, Pa. Is Mr. Knuppenburg present? MR. HUTCHISON: I believe he is on the Committee on Cre- dentials. The BEGBETART: Mr. Hutchison, will you b% Und •nough^to $tik the Committee to excuse him imtll he makes hie report 7 ^ Ic 16 Mr. CHAIKMAN: While there is nothing before the Board, I wish to announce that it will be necessary for us at some time to have a report of the Memorial Committee, and I think possibly it might be well to appoint that Committee at this time, so that if the Committee wish to do so they can collect any facts that they wish to incorporate in their record. I don't want to make the motion, but if there is no objection, knowing that such Committee is needed, I cannot see why the Chairman cannot proceed to the appointment of such Committee and yet, if it be thought best, it will be all right to make the motion. I make this suggestion simply for the reason that it is so customary to make the originator df the motion the Chairman of the Committee that perhaps the members of the Board might hesitate to make the motion for that reason. The CHAIRMAN: Do I hear a motion to that effect? MR. WELD: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Memorial Cora mittee be appointed by the Chair. The motion was agreed to. MR. HUTCHISON: Mr. Chairman, I find Mr. Knuppenburg is not with the Committee and I cannot find him upstairs at the Horti- cultural meeting, though he is said to be about. The SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, are you ready to announce that Committee while we wait? The CHAIRMAN: I will appoint as the Memorial Committee Mr. W^eld, Mr. Black and Mr. Hutchison. The SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that in the absence of Mr. Knuppenburg, perhaps someone who is on the pro- gram for this afternoon to make a report can be heard now. The CHAIRMAN: Very good suggestion. Now, will some gen tleman who is on the progr(im for this afternoon volunteer to make his report now? The SECRETARY: I was jus( going to suggest that possibly Mr. Hutchison might go ahead. MR. HUTCHISON: I guess the best thing to do when a fellow has a bad job is to get rid of it. I have my report here but not (|uite classified as I wish to have it. Though I have not got it paged, I think I can go on with it, and if I get off at the wrong place when it gets to the printer I will endeavor to have it then in the proper shape. If you will take chances on it I will go ahead. The CHAIRMAN: We will now hear from Mr. Hutchison, on the Report on Feeding Stuffs. MR. HUTCHISON: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to read all of this report. I would just say before I read that this woi*k has de- veloped so largely ihsxi it is hu impossibility to make a report of all the work that is done by the Secretary, and by his assistants, or those employed by him. It would require a bulletin to make such a report to you. But I will refer in my report to a bulletin that is published that will give you a large proportion of the work accom- plished. Mr. Hutchison thereupon read his report as follows: Digitized by VjOOQIC 17 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FEEDING STUFFS. By GEORGE G. HUTCHISON. Chairman. To the Honorable Members of the State Board of Agriculture: As your Chairman of Committee on Concentrated Commercial Feeding Stuffs, I be^ leave to make you the following report for the year 1910: With our new law that was placed upon the statute books by the last Legislature, which went into effect August 1st, 1909, we were in a position to proceed with our work with new courage. As stated to you in our last report, the old law was declared unconstitutional by Judge Tressler of Lehigh county. Our determination was to rid the State as far as possible of all feeds that were adulterated and falsely guaranteed. 1 hope to show you in this report that wo have been in a measure successful, and that we hdve entered upon an epoch in the control of the sale of Concentrated Commercial feeds in Pennsylvania. I would first call your attention to the condition that exists amon^ the millers in our own State. Before the passage of a Feeding Stuff Law, a large number of them bought adulterants to adulterate their feeds, but at the present time, the majority of them are grinding whole grains, that is, corn, oats and rye. They do not compound OP mix to any great extent. Kather, they buy their concentratefl feeds from the large manufacturers in the West and sell them as they are received. The millers of our State still pursue the old pi'actice of grinding ear corn, but this is not considered as good a feed as it was in former years, as hogs will not eat the cho]) which contains corn cobs unless they are ground very fine. I do not want io lead you to believe that our millers in Pennsylvania are perfect, but they are doing a business that is nearer the honest dealer than they did in the past. Our great supply of commercial feeds comes from Ohio. Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas and other Western states. Each has a by-product to sell. As we are the great market for feeds, they are all busy looking after their interests, and in this. I do not blame them, if they will give our farmers and stock feeders the worth of their money. The business of the Department of Agri- culture, through its Secretary and his agents, is to see that this is done. The feeds sold in Pennsylvania showed a marked im])rove- raent. As stated in my previous report, / am still advocatinr/ the doctrine that all feeds should te sold on their protein and fat value and their low fiber constituency, or the higher the protein and fat and the lower the crude fiber, the more valuable the feed. rt Digitized by VjOOQIC IK Gentlemen, it is tiuje for vou to STOP, THl.XK and CONSIDER the great question of purchasing your feed supply on- the basis that I have laid down to you. For your information, and that it may be convenient for you to refer to when you receive this report printed in the proceedings of this meeting, I have compiled the following table: TABLE OF ANALYSIS. Name of Peeding Stuff. Crude Protein. Crude Pat. Crude Pfber. P.? cent. Com. - : ' 10.40 Hominy chop or feed I 9.80 Gluten meal, — 29.30 Gluten feed, . .—I 24.00 Dried distillers* grain, largely from cure, — | 80.80 Oats I 11.80 Oats shorts I 16.00 Wheat. • 11.90 Wheat bran. 16.40 Wheat middlings I IS.flO Wheat shorts : 14.90 Barley. 12.40 Barley meal ' 10.60 Brewers* grain, dry, 26.00 Malt sprouts, - 27.20 Rye. 10.60 Rye bran 14.70 Buckwheat - 10.00 Buckwheat bran, 12.40 Buckwheat middlings. -.. Buckwheat shorts, Cottonseed. Cottonseed meal. Flaxseed. Linseed meal, O. P Linseed meal, N. P Com silage Alfalfa hay meal. 28.90 27.10 18.40 42.30 22.60 32.90 ; 83.20 i.or 14.8 Pet cent. Ptr cent. 6.00 2.00 8.80 2.80 n.30 3.30 10.60 5.30 13.30 12.01) 6.00 9.60 7.10 6.10 2.10 1.80 4.00 9.00 4.00 4.60 4.6» 7.40 1.80 2.70 2.20 6.60 6.60 1.40 2.00 18.00 1.70 1.70 2.80 8.60 2.20 8.70 3.60 •31.90 7.10 4.10 7.60 8.30 19.90 28.2 > 13.10 16.60 38.70 7.10 7.90 8.90 8.00 9.50 0.80 6.00 2.20 26.SS *Note high per cent. tNo hulls. This table gives ,vou the analysis of the cereals as nature produces them. It also gives you the analysis of the by-product as the chem- ists find them, and I hope that this table may aid you in becoming educated in regard to the feeds that go to make up \he concentrated pure feeds that are on the market. I am often asked the question, "What is the analysis of the adul- terants that are mixed with the feeds that are found on our mar- kets?" I will give you a table of the adulterants that we have found on the markets of Pennsylvania: Name of Adulterant. Crude Protein. Crude Fat. Crude Fiber. Com cobs, ground. Oat hulls, Inekwbtftt hvUf. . Per cent.jPer cent., Per cent. 2.40 , 0.60 80-O S.OO 1.00 ; ».m 4.10 I 1.10 i 48.80 ) Digitized by GoO^lf 19 By referring to the law, you will tind tbat corn cobs can onlv be mixed with com products, such as corn meal, hominy and gluten. In our work for the year, we have not found any corn cobs mixed with gluten. We have found one tirm mixing corn cobs with hominy feed and another jSrm manufactures a feed, using corn on the ear and hominy, but the fiber in this feed has been kept at about 10 per cent, as the law requires, except in two samples, and in these cases your Secretary ordered prosecution. We secured conviction in both cases and the fine of fSO.OO and costs were paid, which w^ere covered into the State Treasury. Oat hulls are a common mixture with feed, but the law says that if used, they must be so stated in the composition, and that the fiber content of said feed shall not exceed more than 9 per cent, with a variation of 10 per cent, of the 9 per cent, which would make 9.90 per cent. We have had some trouble with the manufacturers who are using oat hulls in a mixture, to keep their fiber near the amount stated. They claimed that they had old goods on the market of Pennsylvania, and that we had secured samples of this. They also claimed that they had trouble in mixing their goods to comply with the law. After a few prosecutions were brought, this firm placed on our markets feeds that now comply with the law. One firm indi- cated that they were going to withdraw their goods from our mar- kets, and this is a matter which they will have to decide for them- .selves. The gi*eat trouble during the year that we have had to contend with, has been the molasses feeds that were found upon the markets of Pennsylvania. The law prohibits the mixing of weed seeds with any feeds sold in our State. A number of manufacturers of molasses feeds persisted in mixing all kinds of weed seeds in their feeds. Their attention was called to these violations, but they still continued to mix weed seeds with their feeds. The Secretary directed prosecu- tion against the said firms, and we have secured conviction in each case, and we believe that we will be able by constantly looking after the matter to prohibit the mixing of weed seeds with any concen trated commercial feeds sold in our State. We think it is time that some of the Eastern states that are consumers of feeds as we are, would endeavor to have passed a law similar to our own. The Pure Food Law protects the human race, and we as men should protect the animals that cannot say what they will eat, but have to eat what is given them or do without. There should be more educa tion on this subject. Six years ago, there was very little known about the analysis of feeds, in fact, very few knew what protein and fat were, and it was only four years ago that we had written in the law, directing the manufacturer should give the analysis for fiber. The question came up at once, What had fiber to do with the foods? Rut you are all coming to find out. I do not wish to criticize any of the educational departments of our State, but I was very sorry to see that at the last Farmers' Week at State college, there was not one person on the program to give any instruction on commercial feeds, and in looking over the list of lec- turers at Farmers' Institutes T can only find one who was scheduled to talk on this great subject. I believe the question is important enough to the farmers and dairymen of Pennsylvania to have some oBe OB each section of the Farmers' Institute force that could or Digitized by 20 would talk on comujercial feeds as they are found in Pennsylvania. Vou will find a large number of instructors who are able to tell you all about fertilizers and other subjects. By the last information that was secured in the Department of Agriculture in regard to the amount of fertilizers sold in the State, It was estimated between six and seven millions of dollars worth, and after consulting with men who I believe know, I am safe in say- ing there are more than thirty millicms of dollars worth of concen trated commercial feeding stuffs sold in Pennsylvania during 1010. This will give some idea of the importance of this subject. I hereby give you a table that gives the names of the county, town or city visited, number of samples taken in each town, number of samples taken in each county and numbej* of towns visited whe\*e no samples were taken. This table shows that there were 1500 sami)les taken by our Special Agent in 1910. It also shows the number of towns that were visited in which there were no samples taken. The reason that there were no samples taken in these towns, was that the feed on .sale had been sampled in other towns near by. We could not visit near all the feed stores in each <ounty, as it would have consumed all the time of the agent, and it would have been impossible to visit all the counties of the Connncmwealtli. This matter will be referral to under the hea^ of "Our Needs.'- TABULATED 8TATEMKXT. § s M M « « *» S s o, . a Sc S Nnmo of 4 ounty Visited. Name of Town or City Visited. zt OD . ^ >» o^ OS ^'n ^ ? ^S ILl Ec §o 3 — 3 — y. /: Indiana, Cambria , SUfiQUPfinntin. 1. Blairsvlllo. . 2. Saltsburg, 3. Blacklick. .. 4. Homer City, 5. Indiana, ..- 6. Ernest, ... 7. Clymer, 8. Crecksfdo. .. 1. Patton. ... . 2. llastinRs, ... 3. Barncsboro, 4. Carrolltown. 6. KbensbiirK. -- 6. Johnfltowu. . 7. South Fork. fe. Gallltzin 9. Scalplevel, ... 10. Conemauph. 11. Crej'son, -. 1. 2. 3. 4. 7. 8. 0 7 8 0 0 0 h 2 3 . 2 1 17 0 0 0 0 3 \<^ Montrost* AHord, New Milford, Great Bintl, 6. Susquehanna Lanesboro Oakland, Hallitead. ^0T£: Ko samples were takta In jome towns, where Indicated, from thr^Jii^tStfir n2ir4J«r found had b«an samiMI. 3 10 2 0 21 TABULATED STATEMENT— Continued. Name of County VtslUd. Name of Town or City VIeHed. 0. . So >5 a a OS ^8 Bradford. Bedford Bocks Tioga. .. . Potter. .. McKean. .. Cameron. .. KIk, . WarrtD, .. Wettmorelaod, Fayette. . 1. Towanda, i. Ulster, t. MonroctOD, 4. Towanda, R. F. D. No. 3, •'►. Athens, <i. Sayre 7. Troy, 5. Alba, 9. Canton, 11). South Waverly 11. Milan ^ 1. Everett i. Bedford, l. Quakertown, — , •>. Richland Centre, t. Doylestown, I. Chalfont, .'). Lansdale, 6. Colmer, 1. Wellsboro, 2. Westfleld, I. Elkland, I. Knoxville, ►. Osceola, 'J. Cownesque, I. Coudersport i. Ulysses, I. Port Allegany, •-*. Kane, :t. Bradford i. Mt. Jewett, - ."». Eldred, l. Emporium i. Driftwood - 1. Ridgway 2. St. Marys X Johnsonburg, I. Warren, .'. \oung8ville, 1. Derry, 2. Latrobe, 3. Greensburg, I. Irwfn, - - 5. Jeannette, - 0. Manor, 7. Mount Pleasant, 8. Scottdale 9. Belle Vernon JO. New Kensington, U. Parnassus, 12. Monessen, 1. Unlontown, 2. Oonnellsvllle, s. Belle Vernon 4 8 i 3 3 4 6 6 8 0 0 41 1 14 15 2 4 9 0 0 0 16 •J 3 8 0 0 34 13 0 n 8 9 16 0 0 10 0 10 8 8 3 10 ^ 1.? 1 3 16 8 9 0 8 *> 4 0 2 61 13 0 1 14 XOTE: No sampler wore taken in some town- 'onnd had been sampleo. whcro Indicatod. from the fnct that the fned Digitized by VjOOQIC 21^ TABULATED STATEMENT— Continued. : " ■ g e M « ♦* I s A . Sg E Nain«^ of Ooiiiity Visited. Name of Town or City Visited. 2g s . •^"S *>t o„ OS II §^ §£ >; g Allegheny. Washington. Greeue , . - . Armstrong, York, . Chester. Mifflin. Junlatft, - 1. ! l\ 4. 5. 6. 1. 'I 2. 8. 4. 6. I 1. 2. 8. 4. 6. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. IS. 14. 15. 16. . 1. 2. .\ 1. 2. 8. 4. 6. 6. 7. 8. 9. . 1. 2. 8. . 1. 2. McKeefport 6 Pittsburg, I 10 WUkfnsburg, 8 Carnegie — ' 12 Wllmerding, , ; 5 Pitcaim, _ 8 Braddock, 10 JH MoDoogabela. - - I 7 Oharlerol ! fl Washington, | 18 Canonsburg, — U Houston, - - ' 0 4j> Waynesburg, 6 5 Apollo, 4 1 Vandergrlft, — i 8 Leechburg, I 6 Kittanning, 14 Ford City 1 ManorvlUe, 2 'iM New Brighton, 8 Beaver, 1 West Brldgewater 1 Monaca, — 8 Beaver Falls, ._ 0 v.\ Lancaster, 28 Lititz. 9 Leaman Place, 6 Manhelm, _ 8 Kinzer, — — ' 6 Ephrata, - , 2 i Columbia, : e Eliza bethtown, 14 Christiana, - - i 4 Witmer, , 8 Bird-ln-hand i 8 Paradise, — 0 ' Gap „ 0 Ronk 0 Strasburg, o Mt. Joy, 0 » York, 82 Hanover, 12 14 CoatesevIUe, - 8 Parkeiburg, 6 Downingtown, 4 MortonvUle 2 Modena, — 0 West Chester, 16 Kennett Square, 4 Westgrove 0 Phocnixville, 0 so Lewtstown _ ._ 10 McVeytown, _ 2 ' Beedsville - 0 W Port Royal, ..! 2 Mifflin « _ , s ' 5 NOTE: No samples wen- taken In some towns, where Indicated, from the fact that the feed found had been sampled. Digitized by VjOOQIC ae TABULATED STATEMENT— Gontinuad. i A 1 4» ■ti s i a . : §g m Name of County Visited. Name of Town or Oity Visited. :s ^^ |8 la §•2 » J?5 JelTersoo. .1 1. LIndsey, - ' 2. PuDxsutawney, ' 3. Reynoldsville, . I i. Brook vIlJe, — .. Lyc<MiiiDg. -I 1. WilJIamsport, ' 2. Newberry, 3. MontoursviJle, 4. WUUamsport, B. F. D. 1, ! 5. MuDcy, _- CJinion. Oentre. .. Adams, . FrankllQ. Cumberland. 1. Lock Hayen, 2. FlemingtoD, 3. Rcnovo, 4. MillhaU 1. Belief onte, . 2. Pbillpsbors, 1. Gettysburg, — 1. Waynesboro, — 2. Greencastle, ... 3. Obambersburg, 4. Scotland, Dauphin. Lebanon . Berks. ... 1. Sbippensburg, 2. Newvflle, . 3. Carlisle 4. Mt. Holly Springs, 5. Hechanicsburg 1. Harrisburg, 2. Middletown, 3. Steelton, Lehigh Huntingdon. Blair. Otearileld. 1. Lebanon, ... 2. Myerstown, 3. AnnviUe, — . 1. Reading, — . 2. Mt. Penn, .. 3. Kutztown, . 4. Fleetwood, . 5. Birdsboro, . 6. Boyertown, 7. Lyons, 1. Allentown, .. 1. Huntingdon, 2. Mapleton, ... 8. Mt. Union, .. 4. Petersburg, . 1. Altoona 2. Martinsburg, .. 3. Hollidaysburg, . 4. Tyrone, — 6. Juniata, 6. Bellwood 7. Duncans vllle, .. 1. Munson Station, 2. Osceola Mills. .. 8. Du Bols, 4. Clearfield, 6. Wallaceton, 0. Houtzdale, 7. Morrisdale, .... 8. Winbum 19 6 8 , 3 0 I ?! 7 0 I 4 18 56 il! 7 ' 8 I 8 10 j 8 ' 19 \ 4 13 ■V 36 1 5 3 0 0 0 8 7 8 0 .^9 14 5 9 0 0 0 8 3 12 8 : 6 ' 0 0 0 22 5 40 NOT£. ^o samplett weru taken in some towns, where Indicated . frol foisnd bad been sanmled. »^q|B^dffe)6tV^PQglg 24 TAKIJLATED STATEMENT— Continued. Name of County Vielied. Name of Town or City Vf sited. Nortbnmberland . Union, 2. 3. 4. 5. I. Sunbury, Shamokln, .. Mt. Carmel, Milton, Watsontown. Snyder. .. Montour. Columbia, Lewlubunr, - Mlfflinburg. .Selinsgrove, Danville. ... Bloomsburg, Catawissa. .. Berwick Peri^, - ' 1. lAizerne. Lackawanna Rutler Merotr. Lawrence, Venang:©. MarysvUlc, .. Duncannon. . Wilkes-Barre, Hazleton, ... Nanticoke. .. Edwardsville, Kingston. ... Luzerne. Pittston Scranton, Dunmore, Butler Harmony, ., Zellenople, ... Evans City, Mercer, Greenville, Sharon South Sharon, Sharpsville, — . 1. New Gastle, on City. ... Franklin, — . Emlenton, — Foreat, Crawford. .. Krif. Montgomery, 1. Tlonesta, Delaware. ... Philadelphia. Somerset . ... TItusvllle, -. Utica Cochranton, Corry Union City, Erie, Pottstown Pottstown, B. F. Chester, Philadelphia, Ok . D. No. I (Sanatoga), Windber, — Somerset, . Rockwood, Plymouth, I B is 16 1 6 1 S 1 19 1 8 . 48 U 2 13 8 8 17 17 1^ 8 5 24 i 5 7 3& 9 8 0 0 ■ 0 0 69 28 0 28 20 8 0 0 VS 7 4 8 3 8 84 8 S 16 3 4 n 8 6 8 0 0 8 4 10 12 26 18 ! 5 SS 12' 12 1 ' 1 4 ; 10 I ' l.^ 0 NOTE: No samples were taken in lome towns, where Indicated, f rorn^ the faot that tte feed >nnd had been aamulad. O found had been sampled 25 I also hereby submit a table showing the places from which the samples were sent in, under that section of the law which says that any resident of Pennsylvania can forward to the Department a sam pie of feeding stuffs, enclosing a fee of one dollar for the analysis of the same. The said analysis shall be made within fifteen days upon receipt of sample at the Laboratory. This table will give you some idea of the interest that is taken by the purchasers of feed throughout the Commonwealth: SPECIAL SAMPLES RECEIVED FOR ANALYSIS DURING THE YEAR 1910. ' t ti 1 || i H *B £ NaiM oX Ooanty. Name of Town. >» o °£ ^1 1^ AUegbeDy. Beaver, .. Bedford, Berks. ... Blair Bradford, Bocki, . Butler. . Cambria, Centre, . Chaster. (Tearfleld. (^lombla. Crawford. Daapbin, . Delawara. 1. Pittsburg, 2. Allegheny, 3. Large, — . 4. Oheswick, Armstrong. ' 1. ApoUo, 1. New Brighton, 1. Saxton, 1. Beading, . 2. Kutztown, 1. Aitoona, . 1. Borne 2. Towanda, 3. Sayre, ... 1. Benjamin, .. 2. PipersvUle, . 8. Newtown, — . 4. Quakertown, 1. Butler, 1. Johnstown, 1. Center Hall, 1. CoatesvUle, 2. Chatham 8. Lincoln University, 4. Malvern, 6. Parkesburg, ._ 6. Phoenizville, — 7. West Chester, 1. Coalport. 2. Du Bois. . 1 1 l.S 1 1 5 5 1 1 1. Berwick, J casein. 2. Pishing Creek, 1. MeadviUe - - a the markets 1. HaiTisburg. own in oup mar- '' "'^'^^" tons sold. They I: ohSL?'!-."'!:-:-:::. -:--::.::::::::: ^«*> ^^« wowt and 8*. Sharon* Hill," 'III 1 ^^ ' Digitized by VjOOQIC 26 SPECIAJ. SAMPLES RECEIVED FOR ANALYSIS DURING THE YEAR 1910. • — Coi^tinaed. Name of Oounty. Name of Town. i I I H •5 i II d. ... iborg. Al. a. ridence, He, -- tie. lire. vlUe, n. -.. Je. . K!ken, lUe. I, .. hia. Center, 0, — . vlUe. 3 i 3 2 24 1 1 8 1 5 47 47 1 1 h 2 3 '» ir. ve. urg. 1 a Digitized by VjOOQIC 27 SPECIAL SAMPLES RECEIVED FOK ANALYSIS DURING THE YEAR 1910. — Continued. 1 t ti 1 l| Name of Ooimty. Name of Towd. § i| «4 *4fl o '^ M • b» £•2 I'f' P II Wayna, -j l. Hawley, 1 | WtrtmorelaDd — | 1. Qlbionton, — - 9 '• 2. QrMDsburg. .....^.^ 1 j 8. Manor ^.-.--.— — ^ ; 1 4. Scottdale j 1 ' York, 1. Brodbeclcs. 1 2. iork, 1 We find upon the markets of Pennsylvania a niunber of brands of what is known as calf meal. This meal is compounded to be used in the raising of young calves where there is a scarcity of nature's feed of pure milk. The firms that are manufacturing these goods are making a legitimate feed, and we have failed to find any adultera- tion in the same, and in reports that have been received from farm- ers who are using the calf meals, we find that they are favorable to their use. I here give a table which will give the analysis of three of the leading brands of this meal: No. 1— Protein, 27 per cent. Fat, 5 per cent. Fiber, 5 per cent. Composition: Locust bean meal, wheat (lour, flaxseed, cottonseed meal, beans, peas and lentils. No. 2— Protein, 27 per cent. Fat, 7 per cent. Fiber, 5 per cent. Composition: Oat meal, barley, linseed and cottonseed meal. No. 3— Protein, 20 per cent. Fat, 9 per cent. Fiber, 3 per cent. Composition: Oat meal, wheat meal, ground flaxseed and casein. There is a large amount of chicken feed sold upon the markets oJ Pennsylvania. A few years ago they were not known in our mar- kets, but at the present time there are thousand of tons sold. They are compounded by reputable manufacturers through the Wont and Digitized by VjOOQIC 28 by a number of firms in our own State. These feeds are sold to the consumer at an average of about 2^ cents per pound. In some locali ties, they run a little less and in other sections, they retail at ^ cents per pound, or they retail at $45 to f60 per ton. I have pre- pared a table showing what these different ingredients would cost per hundred pounds. Wheat, |l.t)0 Oats, 1.20 Buckwheat 1.20 Barlev 1.10 Kaffir Corn, 2.00 Millet, 2.10 Corn 1.50 flO.70 Dividing this by the seven cereals of which it is composed, we find that they cost on an average of one dollar and fifty cents a hundred or 1^ cents per pound or $30 per ton. The cost of these cereals com pared with that of the different scratch grains that we find shows a large profit to the mixer or compounder of the same. Of course, there is one reason that might be given for this difference in cost and that is the profit that must go to the wholesaler also the profit that must go to the jobber. This table consists of the price of the feeds as they are on the market today, but there is one way that the manufacturer of the scratch grains can reduce his mixture and that is by mixing wheat screenings with the same. The larger ]>ei centage of the scratch grains that are found upon the market are made up of wheat screenings. T am not condemning the scratch grain as a feed. I am only calling your attention to the difference in price between that which can be mixed by poultryman or farmer and those that are bought in the convenient way from the dealer. A few years ago, the Department brought prosecution against a number of firms that w^ere manufacturing chicken feed or scratch grain which contained a large percentage of weed seeds, but after our new. law went into effect, these have been eliminated to a large extent and the chick feeds that have been found upon the market, with but few exceptions, comply \iith the Feeding Stuff Law of Penn- sylvania. There are a number of inquiries come to the Department in regard to condimentals that are found upon our markets. These condi- mentals known as invigorators and blood purifiers, are all sold on the market as feeds for domestic animals. Tn analyzing a number of these preparations, we find that they contain drugs that can be pur- chased in any drug store, and if our farmers and dairymen will se- cure Bulletin 175, ])ages 147, 148 and 149, they will find the formula or composition of these different condimentals. I find that the farmers and poultry^ feeders are always more anx- ious to get something to feed in a convenient form, which they pay from 100 to 200 per cent, more for, than if they purchased the mate- rials and compound it themselves. This seems to be the natural way of doing things at the present time. We would all sooner have other people to do this work in a wholesale way than to be bothered with it ourselves, but that is a matter for each individual to iec\de.i^ Digitized by VjOOQ Lc 29 The question is often asked, What are distillers' and brewers' grains or by-products. I here give a definition of the same taken from Bulletin No. 175 for the year 1008. This may be of some information to those purchasing feeds, and as it is in a condensed form, it may bo of more value than if a full definition were given. DISTILLERY AND BREWERY BY-PRODUCTS. Distillers' Grains Analyses on pages 58 and 59, Bulletin Xo. 175. 1908. Distillers' grains are obtained from the cereals in the manufacture of alcohol or whiskey. Usually corn and rye are used, but some times, we find that oats, wheat or barley are employed. Briefly, tho process is as follows: The grains are coarsely ground and treated with a malt solution which converts the starch into sugar. Yeast is then added, thus changing the sugar into alcohol, which can be distilled. Tho residue, consisting chiefly of the protein, germs and hulls of tho grains used, is dried and sold as food for cattle. Distillers' dried grains, having all the starch i^emoved, is consequently richer in pro tein and fat than the grains from which they are derived. These grains are considered valuable and economical food for dairy ani- mals. Three samples of corn distillers' grains were analyzed, showing an average of 33.69 per cent, of crude protein, 15.24 per cent, of crude fat and 12.17 per cent, of crude fiber. The collection also in eluded one sample of rye distillers' grains which carried less than one-half as much crude protein than was found in corn distillers* grains. The sample also carried nenrlv three per cent, more crude • fiber. BREWERS' (IR.VINS. Analyses on iiages 58 and 51), Bulletin No. 175. Brewers' grains are obtained from barley in llie mannfactnie of malt liquors. The barley is first placed under c<mditions favorable to germination, and during this process, the starch is converted into sugar. The sprouts are removed and sold as cattle food while the malted grains are crushed, the sugar is extracted, and the residue is dried and placed upon the market as brewers' dried grains. Dis- tillers' and brewers' grains are fairly disgestible. Four samples were analyzed during 1908 and the average results appear in the following table: ^ XVEMABE ANAL¥l»i'KS AND RBTAIL PRIGBS. Nuuibiu* of samples 1 1 6 4 Crude protein, 28.50 22.50 26.34 28.19 Crude fat, 7.27 6.93 7.30 7.43 Crude fiber, 13.25 14.18 Price, per ton f 20.00 f23.00 f22.80 |28.25 The ijiumber of violations of the Feeding Stuff Law was sixty. We have secured convictions in all of these cases but one, and that case has been appealed to court and will be tried at the March term in the Centre County Court. In the hearings of these cases before the courts, there never has come up a question. in the argument of the attorneys for the defense in regard to the constitutionality of the law, and I am led to believe, from the information I received from the attorneys, that our law is a good one and well drawn. The Secre tary has been very anxious that our law should not be the means of prosecution, that we should endeavor to educate and inform the manufacturers of concentrated feeds of the meaning of the law and have them comply with the law without bringing more prosecution-s than is necessary. The men who are engaged in the sale of feeds throughout Pennsylvania are reputable citizens, engaged in legiti mate business, and our experience with them is that they are anxious to handle pure feed and give their customers a fair return for their money. I would like to call your attention to one instance where a large firm in the West, that for years handled large quantities of mixed feeds, that have placed upon the market feed running very high in protein, high in fat and low in fiber, and they are endeavoring to have their customers buy this feed. They claim that it is more profitable to buy a feed high in protein and fat and low in fiber than to buy the low grade feeds that were formerly on the market. There is axiother section of this law that we are pleased to state the manufacturers or importers of feeding stuffs are complying with, and that is, that upon the request of the Department they shall file a registration, giving the analysis and composition of their feeds. We have received 378 registrations for the sale of commercial feeds in Pennsylvania, representing over 1200 brands. Many brands were alike in their composition, such as wheat by-products, distillers* and* brewers' by ])roducts and whole grain feeds. OUR NEEDS. I would like to call your attention to some of our needs for the proper enforcement of this law. The work has so grown and the large number of feed products placed upon our markets has become enormous, and it is impossible for one sampling agent to visit all the feeding stuff stores in Pennsylvania <mce a year, and we find that a visit should be made at least twice a year to each dealer, if pos- sible. Therefore, we need money to employ one more sampling agent. We also need in the oflice one clerk who should be a stenographer and also able to keep books, as each sample that is taken by the agent means just a given amount of work in the oflSce. There must be records kept of these samples, and after they are analyzed, re- portf5 of the analysis must be made to the Secretary, to the dealer. 31 . to tke manufacturer, and one to be kept on file in the office. Thus you will see that 2,000 samples taken, means eight to ten thousand reports to be made of each sample. We also sent out 6500 bulletins and a large number of copies of the law. This all requires clerical work besides the thousands of letters that come to the Department requiring answers. We have grown from a very small beginning to a Bureau of no small means. I have endeavored in the short space of time that has been allotted to me, to call your attention to some of the most important things connected with our work. We have here at the meeting samples of the different feeds that we find on the markets of Pennsylvania, as well as samples of the adulterants. You will find a gentleman in charge of the same, and we will be pleased to give you any information that it is in our power to give. The Laboratoi-y is situated on the fifth floor of the Capitol Building, and you will find those in charge delighted to give you any information that they can. As the General Agent of the Department of Agriculture, I wish to return thanks to Secretary Critehfleld for his courtesy and kind ness to me and for the confidence that he has reposed in me in carry- ing out his work. I also wish to thank the Chief Chemist, Mr. James W. Kellogg, for his kindness and for the able manner in which he has had conducted the laboratory work, and to Mr. John F. St. Clair, the Special Agent, for the care and courteous manner which he has met the dealers throughout the State of Pennsylvania. Any information that I can give to any member of this Board or any farmer in Pennsylvania, in regard to commercial feeds, I will be delighted to do it. You will find our bulletin covering the work of 1909, one of the best published in the United States. MR. HUTCHISON: The most important statement in my re port is: "I am still advocating the doctrine that all feeds should be sold on their protein and fat value, and their low fiber constituency, or the higher the protein and fat and the lower the crude fiber the more valuable the feed." If you get nothing else out of ray report, I would like you to make that statement. A Member: I would like to know the analysis of com silage. MR. HUTCHISON: 1.07 per cent of protein, .80 per cent of fat and 6 per cent, of crude fiber. It is low, as you see, in protein, and low in fat, but the great value of the ensilage is that in the green state it makes a stimulating food in the winter. Of course, lots of good feeders add some high protein feed with the ensilage to bring it up. Is there any other analysis that you would like to have? A Member: Let us have the alfalfa, please. MR. HUTCHISON: The alfalfa hay meal is 14.3 per cent, of protein — some will run a little higher than that; crude fat, 2.20 per cent Now there is a difference in the fiber of alfalfa running acc<»rding to the large stems which you will find in the plants; some of it runs a little higher and some lower, but the average is about 25 per cent, of fiber. A M^nber: Please compare the wheat bran rightpj^fg-^yQoOQlc 32 MR. HUTCHISON : Wheat bran is fifteen, that is a little higher, in round numbers, in protein; 4 per cent, of crude fat comparal with -20 per cent; and nine per cent, of fiber. The wheat bran has less fiber than the alfalfa. The report that I get from the men who manu- facture the alfalfa meal is that we have to add corn or something with it to bring it up. Just feeding alfalfa alone the dairymen don't get the best results. MR. J. A. HERR: Mr. Chairman, I move that the report be re ceived and placed on file for publication with the proceedings of the Board. The moti(m was seconded and agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: Is there any further discussion on either of the reports read this morning. MR. GLOVER: I would like to ask a question in regard to roads, for information. Whether the roads that were contracted for two or three years ago will probably be completed now? Up in our county of Union there was a road started from MiflSin to Lewis- burg, a distance of about nine miles, and after they had built about three miles the work stopped. Our people would like to know whether this road will be completed now. The contractor seems ready to go tm with the work, but there appears to be a hitch somewhere hero at the Ilighwa.r Department. The CHAIRMAN: Is there any oue here who can answer that question? Perhaps no one but the Highway Commissioner can an swer it. MR. HUTCHISON: We have had the same experience, and hun <lred8 and hundreds of others have had it throughout the Common- wealth. The appropriation of money made was not large enough 1o complete this work. Now our county has a peculiar condition. We have surveys made for four and a half miles of road out of Ty- rone through our valley. The survey was made, it passed our County Commissioners, and passed up to the high officials, and we thought we were going to drive on a State road, but our good brothers in Huntingdon, under the little amendment that was put into the State law afterwards saying that boroughs could get the apppropriation to build roads, came down here and put us in a hole, and Huntingdon borough got the forty-four thousand dollars to build roads in Hunt- ingdon borough for farmers to hitch their horses on, and gentlemen to run their automobiles on, and that has been a great detriment to the good road laws of Pennsylvania. I just think it is something we should consider and think about, and if the new road law comes here let us see that it ])rovides that the boroughs shall build their o\^Ti streets. When these two fellows built the roads they don't even leave the hitching posts up for the farmers to tie their hoi'ses on. This has been a detriment to getting money to build roads, and that is why ours is not completed. I would like to go on record here as a member of this Board, and one interested in the farmers of Penn- sylvania, against the boroughs getting the money that shauld grv to the farmers to build roads. Digitized by vjOOQ IC / 33 The CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions on the subject gone over? We want to have the discussions now. We have some rime for this. MR. WITTMAN: I might add another thing to what Mr. Hutchi son says in his report. He says something about people paying too much for scratch feed for chickens. They are also loosing a lot of money, because the grains used generally in making up these com- pound feeda are shrivelled up and far from being first class grains, and people paying more than the prices of the good grain are paying too much for this inferior stuff. The hens cannot lay eggs on stuff like that. It is all husks and fiber. The analysis shows that it is not a good feed to get results. I ran across a man who was feeding this commercial feed and he says you see the way I am feeding, and they will not lay. That fellow had a half an inch of that feed in the pen. It was all waste stuff. They would not eat it. They could not lay eggs. It was up to me and I told him to buy the grains himself and get the befit, and feed that, and in a few weeks he was getting lots of eggs. He had been feeding this other feed for two months and getting nothing, and besides was paying too much for his wisdom. MK. HUTCHISON: A little discussion of that scratch grain now may save some money. The SECEETAKY: I should be very glad if it would be scratched clear. MR. WITTMAN: Mr. Hutchison does not make it strong enough. He says there are thousands of tons sold in Pennsylvania, where ten years ago there were practically none. That is not big enough. There are thousands of tons sold in southeastern Pennsylvania. It is almost universally used. People don't seem to know of anything else because it is handy and ready mixed. The farmer seems to think it is too much trouble to mix his own feed. In one way the law is wrong. On the other hand, I send to St. Louis and buy a particular brand of chicken feed just because it con- tains a lot of weed seeds. My chickens are weed seed hungry all win- ter and T get more eggs because I feed weed seeds. You take the* droppings and mix them up and pour on blotting paper, and examine them and see what happens. These weed seedp are just ground up fine. They don't do any harm. My hen manure does not give me any weeds on my lawn. MR. HUTCHISON: Go on and state that the chicken and sheep are the only two animals that have the means of grinding up these weed seeds. MR. WITTMAN: That is what the Vermont Station says. The chicken that has plenty of grit grinds up all of the weed seeds. A Member: Why do you buy that weed seeds? MB. WITTMAN: It is a cheap feed I am buying. I buy it be- cause the man does not make any secret that it does contain a lot of weed seeds, and because ray chickens like it and it i.«i good, and they are hungry for it all winter long. 3 Diaitized by Vj^OOQ IC 34 The SECKETARY: You are not selling any of it? MR. WITTMAK: No; I am buying it all winter long. I think the law is wrong in that respect. I think weed seeds ought to be allowed in chicken feed. MR. HUTCHISON: Will they eat cockel? MR. WITTMAN: No, there are three weed seeds they wonH eat. A Member: What are the cheap feeds that chickens would eat? MR. WITTMAN: Low grade of oats, a poor grade of barley, three or four kinds of wheat, screenings, just simply a lot of hu^k and fiber and poor cheap buckwheat. It is the poorest kind of grain that is what it is. A Member: Some of the wheat in our county is smutty. How would that do to feed chickens? MR. WITTMAN: They would pick out the good wheat first. When forced they will eat the others and it causes a lot of damage. MR. HUTCHISON: I am glad Brother Wittman came up on that. Now, under the Secretary's ruling, screenings are the small grains or broken grains of wheat, rye, buckwheat and things of that kind, that are not wheat seeds. He has been buying small grains of wheat and oats, and small grains of other cereals. That part is all right but now he is buying up weed seeds on the market. He is buy- ing a large amount of cockel that they will not eat. There are other weed seeds that the chicken can assimilate. They are high in protein, though bitter, yet they like tliem when ground up as they grind them they get the benefit, that is the two domestic animals mentioned. I was talking on the cheapness of the feed and the fraud the man is paying for. That is what I was bearing down on. I am glad to have this discussion. That is what will sharpen us on that line. I would like you to say something about this calf meal. Have you any experience on that? Let us have somebody talk on this and get something out of it. .Unless there is something else to come up I would like to hear something on this subject. This calf feed is a new thing to me. I have had trouble more or less with calves and have given them mill^ for a long time, and this is a new feed to me entirely. My experience is that the best grain, that weighs the most is the cheapest and will pay. The warehouse people are asking seventy- five cents for common screenings. You cannot afford to pay that for it when good wheat is only ninety cents a bushel. I am sure there is not over sixty per cent, of food value in the screenings compared with good wheat, so T say the best grain is the cheapest. A Member: Mr. Chairman, I have in the past eight years fed calf meal at different times, and I have always found it a very good help when milk was short. It does well, the calves thrive. On the road question I want to say that in our county we had some years ago, when the State was assisting the county to build some roads, a number of pieces of state road built, and considering Digitized by VjOOQIC 35 the wear and tear that has been on them since that time, Tv^ithout any repairs^ we think they were good roads ; but having had no effect in all that time we think it would be a great pity for the state to kt them go to destruction now. They need repairing now. A Member: Mr. President that brings to mind this fact, that we have had a state road in my county for fonr years, and only two years ago and the last summer the supervisors had to go over the road and put on a fine coating of crushed stone to keep it in order. The matter of keeping up the public roads is a burden after they are built, and if this state board would take some action whereby the state looks after the maintenance of those roads besides the building it will be a good help. The SECRETARY: I want to suggest that after a while we will have a Committee on Resolutions, and if any gentleman thinks of any legislation that he believes would he profitable and beneficial to agriculture, and will prepare the resolution and hand it to the Com- mittee on Resolutions, and the Committee re])ort favorably on it, they can go to the Legislative Committee of the State Grange as well as to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Represeii tatives and Senate. That will be n "rood way to f^et it started. I make this simply as a suggestion. The Legislative Committee of the State Grange is in session in this city now. If the resolution is presented to the committee the regular or appointed Committee on Resolutions of this Board and is adopted by tlie Roard, and a copy sent to the Agricultural Committee of the House of Representatives and Senate, also to the State Grange, it certainly will stand a vi^vy good chance to get before the Legislature. The CHAIRMAN: If you have any resolutions on legislation please hand them to the Legislative Committee as it will have a session at 4:.% this afternoon. The Legislative Committee consists of H. G. .McCjowan, A. J. Kahler, Matthew Rodgers, S. S. Rlyholder and E. H. Dorset t. MR. HUTCHISON: I wish to state on the subject of calf meal that there are several brands on the market. We have the com- position of three of them in our bulletin. You will find full direc- ticms how to feed on the package. It is a high concentrate. In pre I'aring it for use mix it with a little milk to start with, and as you ^ gradually get to feeding a little more mix it with water, and after a while you will get to feeding it without milk. Yon can scald it be fore you mix it. Scald in the morning that which you are going to feed in the evening. You can get full directions for feeding on each package. I have had ex])erience in growing one calf with it. It IS a feed that is very high in protein. This calf is growing very rapidly, it is not yet a yearling and is as large as any I have. T am not advertising this feed, T am just telling you one of the things that is on the market. There is no adulterant used in the making of this feed; it is pure. A Member: We had a Jersey calf that we did not want to raise and we could not sell it to anybody, and we determined to feed it for the butcher without letting it snck the cow. By the use of the meal we sold it at four weeks old to the huckster for eight dollars. /[^ o 36 A MtmHer: I was struck with one thing in the statement of Mr. Hutchison, and that was this: The diverting of the funds on the building of boulevards in the boroughs and cities. T want to call attention to the fact that the same thing is working in our schools against the rural population. The schools of the towns are being built up and made first-class while the schools of the rural districts are neglected and robbed of the funds that should come to them but which are being used to support the schools of the boroughs and cities. A Member: I want to add that there will come before the Legis- lature a bill called the School Code, one of which went through the Legislature two years ago, and very fortunately was set aside by Governor Stuart. This one goes considerably further in some re spects than that one. It adds quite a number of things to the curriculum. T have been a school director off and on more or less for tw'enty years, and I feel thoroughly satisfied that should such a thing become a law the farmers of Pennsylvania will find them- selves very much embarrassed. I find further and T think there are a great many other farmers in this state that will agree with me. that we have now longer school terms than the people in the country can comfortably take care of; and they easily agree with me now that we have as much curriculum as our children can handle, and that the only thing that we need now is better teachers if we can get them. The CHAIRMAN: Any further remarks? If there is anything on that particular subject very urgent, put it in writing and present it to the Legislative Committee, because there are certain conditions in that that will come up in the regular work of that Committee. If there are no other remarks on that subject, what action will you take on the Report of Brother Hutchison? A Member: Mr. Chairman, I move that it be received and placed on file for publication with the proceedings of the Board. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIR:\rAN: The further order is New Business and Un finished Business. We will take up the Unfinished Business first. The SECRETARY: 1 know of none, Mr. Chairman. MR. HERR: T would suggest that under the head of New Busi- ness we fix the time and place of our summer meeting. That is one item under the head of new business. ^tR. IIT^TCHTSON: T think the Committee on Credentials should reiK)rl fiist, because each one of those gentlenuMi would be entitled to a vo((\ Could we iml have a ])nrtinl report of tju* Connnittei* on C'redentials. MR. 1IERI\: >\'c are all members of (he Board of Agricullure until the day fixed for the admission of new members and that will be tomorrow. Therefore, T guess my motion would be out of order. The SECRETARY: I think we had better wait for the Report of the Committee on Credentials until tomorrow, when the new mem bers can be received. The report could be received now so far as delegntes are concerned, but not as to members of the Board. ^ Mr. HUTCHISON: Is that the decision of the Secretarv or the hiw? The SEOKETAKY: 1 do uot kuow that the Setietarv has the right to rule upon that question, but certainly the old members that are present, whose term expires with this year, have a light to act until their places have been filled by the incoming members. We are in session today, just as we were last year, and there can be no new organization or new work done that pertains particularly to the newly constituted Board until after the <»lettion tomorrow. That day is fixed by Act of Assembly. The CHAIEMAN: The report of the Committee on Credentials heing received does not necessarily seat the members until tomorrow at the proper time. I think it is proper to have a Committee on Resolutions ap})ointe<l at this time, will somebody make n motion to that etl'ect. A Member: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that five members <if the Board \*e appointed as a Committee on Resolutions. The motion was seconded, put and agreed to. The CHAIR: As a Committee on Resolutions the Chair appoints Messers. F. D. Kerrick, Bradford County; J. A. llerr, Clinton Coun- ty; Sylvester Shaffer, Lawrence County: W. K. l*erham, \Vayne Coun- ty, and M. P. Shoemaker, Westmoreland County. MR. HUTCHISON: Mr. Chairman, 1 move that a Committee of three be appointed to wait upon the Governor. The motion was seconded, put and agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: The Chair appoints Messrs. Sylvester Shaffer, A. P. Young and J. H. Wilson as a Committee to wait upon the Governor and inform him that the Board is in session, and invite him to meet this convention. The CHAIRMAN: Anything further under New Business, gen tlemen? MR. HUTCHISON: I would suggest that the Governor be waited upon as early as possible so that he may be able to arrange his mat- ters to be with us this afternoon. If possible it would be excellent to wait upon the Governor this forenoon. The SECRETARY: Permit me to say that possibly the members would be very glad to have the opportunity to go over to Johnston's Hall and look at the exhibits a little while before dinner. The Gommittee has gone to a good deal of expense in gathering and placing these exhibits, and we mij>ht lake this opportunity of going over there and looking them over. MR. CLARK: I just came from the building, and it is almost impossible to finish the arrangement of the exhibits with the crowd in the house. MR. HUTCHISON: Why not ask Mr. Knuppenburg to report now? The tt«:CRETARV: Ue is not to be f^umi. Digitized by GoOglc 38 The CHAIRMAN: We will now have the Keport of the Com- mittee on Credentials, if thev are ready to report. MATTHEW RODGERS (Chairman of the Committee on Cre- dentials): Mr. Chairman, the Committee are only prepared to submit a partial report, as follows: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS To the Officers and Members of the Pennsylvania State Board of Agriculture: We, your committee, do lind that the following named persons have been duly elected members of your organization from the counties herein set forth: John P. Young, Franklin County. J. N. Glover, Union County. J. A. Herr, Clinton County. E. J. Durnall, Delaware County. D. S. Taylor, Washington County. G. F. Barnes, York County. Dr. W. Frank Beck, Blair County. W. H. Milliron, Butler County. J. Aldus Herr, Lancaster County. L A. Eschbach, Northumberland Counly. W. C. Black, Mercer County. B. Frank Wambold, Bucks County. R. J. Weld, Warren County. Edward S. Keiper, Dauphin County. S. S. Blyholder, Armstrong County. J. H. Schulty., Montgomery Countj'. John C. Weller, Somerset. The credentials of C. H. Dewitt, of Tioga (bounty, are held for further consideration. The Lebanon County Agricultural and Horticultuial Association have elected the following delegates to this meeting: (;iark G. Long, Jonestown, Pa. E. Shuey, Lickdale, Pa. J. H. Brubaker, Lebanon No. 10. Albert Bamhart, Annville. F. R. Fertig, Lebanon, Pa. E. S. Risser, Lawn, Pa. J. 11. Bennetch, Newmanstown, No. 1. J. K. Dierwechter, Richland, Pa. L. E. Bucher, Myerstown, Pa. S. P. Heilraan, M. D., Heilman Dale, Pa. The Juniata County Agricultural Society have elected the following delegates to this meeting: C. C. Mertz, Thompsontown, Pa. Stuart A. Robinson, Port Royal, Pa. James N. Groninger, Port Royal, Pa. Digitized by GoOgk 39 The Clarion Couuty Fair Association has elected the following del^ate to this meeting: Peter Wingerd. The Adams County Agricultural Association have elected the fol- lowing delegate to this meeting: W. W. Boyer. MATTHEW liODGEKJS, Chairman. PETEli GEAEHAET, Secretary. E. R. WAKBLRTON, M. M. :NAGlKEy, D. A. KNUPPENBUBG. The CHAIBMA]^: What action will you take on the Report of the Committee on Credentials? A Member: I would like to know whether the report of the Committee recommends that these gentlemen shall be enrolled as members of the Board at the proper hour tomorrow. MR. HERR: I move that the delegates that were sent here be i-eceived as delegates and be allowed the privilege of the floor. The motion was seconded, put and agreed to. A Member: I would move that there be added to these members the Master of the Lackawanna County Grange, Mr. J. W. Ross. The motion was seconded, put and agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: What action will you take on the recommenda- tion that the members be received? A Member: I move that action on the members be deferred until tomorrow at the proper time. A Member: What is the proper time tomorrow ? MR HERR: Any time Wednesday. Wednesday is the day— any hour. I think their terms commence tomorrow, according to law. The motion was seconded, out and agi'eed to, to postpone action on the election of members until tomorrow. The CHAIRMAN: 1 think that the Chairman is ready to enter- tain a motion that visitors who are not regularly appointed by any society shall have the privilege of entering into the discussions. The Chair is ready to entertain a motion of that kind. A Member: I move you that visitors be received and be given the privilege of the floor as others to take part in the discussion. The motion was seconded, put and agreed to. The SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, I believe there are and will be a number of visitors here who will take part in the discussion and help our work along and I would be very glad if such visitors will send their names to the desk in order that they may be entered upon our minutes. The invitation now is extended to any organiza- tic Ired character and these persons will have the privileges 40 of the floor. I would be very glad to know who accepts the invita- tion. So I will be very glad, Mr. Chairman, if they will just send their names to the Chair, or come up here and give their names to me. 41 A Member: The new members will have no say until tomorrow, until after their election? MB. HUTCHISON: I move that these members be given the privilege of the floor in all deliberations except to vote. The motion was seconded, put and agreed to. The following visitors were then enrolled: Ernest F. Pierce, York, Pa. E. 0. Bowers, East Petersburg, Vi\. J. S. Briggs, Norristown, Pa. M. E. Shay, Holmesburg, Pa. Harry Baker, Lake Carey, Pa. A. O. Finn, Clifford, Susquehanna County, Pa. Hon. H. R. Brunges, Tunkhannock, Pa. W. H. Bullock, Honesdale, Pa. John Henning, Mehoopany, Pa. W. J, Lewis, Pittston, Pa. H. W. Sweigert, Mifflin County. J. W. Yoder, Mifflin County. W. J. McFarland, Mifflin County. Charles McNeely, Juniata County. W. A. McMeen, Juniata County. Samuel Foust, Montgomery County. A. J. Hummer, Schuylkill County. Jerry Hoffner, Schuylkill County. John Shrop, Schuylkill County. J. W. Ross, Master of Lackawanna County Grange. J. D. Frederick. W. S. Ross. C. W. Shaw. A. B. Brodbeck. W, H. Patterson, Columbia County. H. M. Shaley, Union County. R. N. Atwater, Delaware County. Elmer E. Beck. E. D. Swartz, Schuylkill. James T. S. Way. Howard Kerrick, Bradford County. John T. Bashing, Adams County. George K. Hartman, Adams County. Ephraim Shelley, Adams County. M. M. Clark, Westmoreland County. Morris Swartwood. W. H. Stoud. John C. Miller, Union County. Alvin Dewitt, Adams County. C. G. Atwater, York County. J. Kerr Lott, Adams County. C^r\r\n]o Francis J. McKanna, Westmoreland County. D,g,t,zedby>^UU^lL 41 MR HUTCHISON: Mr. ChairmaD, 1 move that we now adjourn until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon. The motion was agreed to. Tuesday Afternoon, January 4, 1911, 1:30 P. M. Vice President J. C. Weller in the Chair. The CH AIKMAN : The meeting will come to order. We will now haTe the report of the Committee on Fruit and Fruit Culture, by D. A. Knuppenburg, Chairman, Lake Carey, Penna. Mr. Knuppenburg then presented his report as follows: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FRUIT AND FRUIT CUL TURE By D. A. KNUPPENBURG, Chairman. The year that has so recently slipped out of the arena witnessed a decided march forward in many directions. Looking back over the record and weighing the importance of the different lines of progress, we naturally place at first, the phenomenal development in Agriculture. In the light of past events, I confidently believe that if the year 1911 sees advancement correspondingly as great as that of 1910 there will have been accomplished most marvelous results. In the march of progress those things that most closely concern the home, is the movement to make farm life more attractive and re- munerative ; the strong interest manifested in civic improvement and the Increasing demand that the public schools shall furnish an all-around education that fits our children for active, honorable and self-reliant life. All these and many other forward movements are good, and should enlist the interest and support of every right minded person. The Department of Agriculture is to be congratulated on the changes that have been wrought along this line; but we are only standing on the threshold of what must be accom- plished. This is not a result of second-hand information but a mat- ter of absolute personal knowledge. The people of the State of Pennsylvania have not fully realized the vastness and importance of the wonderful resources before them. Fruit growing has been profitable where near markets, but little has been done toward bringing the people to properly understand the great possibilities within their reach. However, we are prepared to report rapid progress. In proof of this, I wish to call attention to the display of fruits at Horticultural meetings, fairs, institutes, orchard meetings and Grange meetings, which sp^ak in terms too plain to be misunderstood of the advancement of fruit growing in Pennsylvania. It has been fairly demonstrated that a great per cent, of our cheap lands are admirably adapted to the growing of fruits if intelligent and up-to-date methods are used. New acres have been uppermost in the minds of the husbandman. They ae yet hare scarcelv begun to utilize them as thev mav and loill in future • • " ' Digitized by J 4£ years. Fruit trees respond beyond the belief of the ordinary person even on what is called worn-out land. The roots penetrate deeper and feed on the fertility stored beyond the reach of the ordinary field crop. Fruit trees put on rapid growth if properly cultivated, fertilized and pruned, and the ever present insect pests held in check by use of improved spray methods, all of which must be followed up intelligently. The State is doing a great work in bringing the people to under- stand and practice the new way of growing trees, gathering, pack- ing and marketing fruit. In the model and supervision orchard work now carried on by the State through the Bureau of Zoology, the people are taught to select a proper site; next to prepare the soil for the planting; also how and where to buy stock, how to select varieties best adapted to each locality, how to plant, prune and fertilize; to know dangerous insect pests and how to suppress them. Among the most destructive of these are the San Jose scale, borers, codling moth, curculio, aphides, oyster shell scale^ scurfy scale, Put- nam scale and the caterpillars. Next comes the fungus diseases, blights, mildews, rusts and rots. Pennsylvania lost one million dollars in 1910 from the ravages of codling moth alone. We see apple, pear, peach, plum, cherry, blackberry, raspberry, gooseberry, strawberry and many other small fruits all in their natural state growing wild. What better proof can we look for as to the adapt- ability of Pennsylvania to fruit and fruit growing? What would we think to see a lumbering railroad train with an ancient wood burning engine and a man between each car twisting away at a cast iron break wheel, trying to manage the railroad business of today? This would be just as much in keeping with the times as to see people trying to grow fruit under the system that prevailed fifty years ago. As our young men and women become edu- cated, the fcirm home is left to the renter, and soon dissolution reigns. The work now in progress by the State of carrying practical informa- tion direct to the rural districts, is working out the problem to satis- faction. That is just what is happening on many farms in Penn- sylvania. The bounteous crops of fruit harvested where improved methods have been applied proves beyond a doubt that there still remains in Pennsylvania soil greater wealth than has ever yet been brought out. Thousands of people are encouraged and starting back to occupy the homes once left to the owls. Over 1100 orchards have been treated for insect pests with very marked results; seventy-five per cent, more fruit trees now growing in Pennsylvania than three years previous. Peach comes in profitable bearing the fourth year, apple four to eight years. Jonathan apple has given three bushels per tree the sixth year. The fruit crop of Pennsylvania in 1910 was not large, and good prices prevailed; prices of apples last fall ranged from seventy-five cents to one dollar and a quarter per bushel. Peaches from sixty cents to one dollar and a half a basket. The kinds of apples most favored for planting are principally, Northern Spy, Baldwin, Rhode Island Greening, Staynian Winosap, Grime's Golden, York Imeprial, Winter Banana, Stark, Delicious and Jonathan. There is a grow- ing demand for currants and gooseberries and a ready market for small fruits. The market calls for quality. The small things of earth confound the wise, and still there is room. ^ , Digitized by VjOOQIC 43 The CHAIKMAN: You have heard the report. What action will you take upon it? MR. BLYHOLDEK: I move that it be received mid phucd on file for publication with the proceeilinfrs of the Hoard. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN: The next on the program is the ReiK)rt on Forests and Forestry, by Robert Conklin, Harrisburg, Penna. The SECRETARY: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conklin vnU not be able to be present at this afternoon's session, but he has .^ent as his substitute Mr. Robert E. Rupp, who belongs to his Department. The CHAIRMAN: We will be pleased to hear from Mr. Rnpp. Mr. Rupp then presented the report as follows: REPORT ON FORESTS AND FORESTRY By ROBERT CONKLIN, Harrisburg, Pa. It is the duty of a government to perpetuate itself, and in per- petuating itself there is a further duty to provide for the common welfare of its citizens. With these objects in view, it is wise for a .state to see to it that every square foot of soil, the source of wealth, be made to produce its highest revenue. Whenever elements of pro- duction are allowed to be wasted, the whole moral fiber of those in connection with the waste is lowered and general dissatisfaction follows. The state in turn, suffers from undesirable citizens, loss of industry, income, and at the same time outlay for remedial meas- ures, and a host of economic conditions which can hardly be followed. Pennsylvania stands high in the list of states, agriculturally, and we are all proud of ^er record, but as long as it remains true that at least 8,000,000 acres of productive soil are not paying interest on a low investment in them, to say nothing of taxes, and other miiliiWis of acres are not producing more than half of what they are capable, we can still bow our heads in shame and think on the matter seriously; When we grasp the enormity of this blot on our records we should be stirred to redoubled efforts to put Pennsylvania where she belongs — not high in the list, but the Keystone of the Arch. The fact is sometimes overlooked that trees grow on soil and that a wood crop is just as truly a crop as a crop of wheat. It is this fact that I want to recall to your minds today. Trees will grow on soil which is too rocky or too poor to grow any agricultural crop, be cause only a very small percentage of their make-up is taken from the soil. But it is also true that some trees will grow much more rapidly on moderately good soil than they will on poor soil. They will grow on hillsides too steep to farm, where erosion is taking place or is hard to prevent, along streams, roads and in undesirable comers. They require practically no attention after planting and arc* all the time growing into value financially and otherwise, r^^^^]^ ^ Digitized by VjOOQIc 44 Fifty j#arg ago a farmer in Eastern Pennsylvania planted Norway spruce and European larch along his fence rows. Today the trees alone are worth almost as much as his farm, and yet they have taken nothing from his annual crops, but rather increased them by re- ducing evaporation over the fields. At least 4,000,000 acres of cleared farm land in Pennsylvania are fit only* for growing trees. Why are they not being planted? Simply because the farmers do not know how, what or when to plant and the returns which may be had from planting. Education must be the keynote of our activity. The present schemes must be intensified, new schemes must be devised, and every means used which will bring economic farm education to every farmer and his family. There must be more co-operation on the part of the Departments concerned — principally those of Education, Agriculture, and For- estry. School gardens, elementary agriculture, agricultural clubs. Arbor Day, and so on must be gotten into the schools. The school buildings should be the social centers of the communities, and if necessary, the Government must send out social settlement workers. Agriculture and forestry must no longer be left out of county and local teachers' institutes, nor should a consideration of the schools and forestry be left out of farmers' institutes. There are no forestry institutes, but lectures, bulletins, sample plantings and all manner of assistance must be provided for. It behooves every member of our Departments to make each appropriation reach as far as pos- sible, but it is more important that results are obtained from what is done, and then the results themselves must and will speak for in- creased assistance from the Legislature. During the past year the activities of the Department of Forestry advanced steadily both along established lines and along new lines. There have l)een added to the reserve area 17,000 acres, making the total area of reserves now owned by the State 933,582 acres. There are thirty-nine t mined foresters and eighty-five rangers in charge of this large are«n, using every means available to develop it as rapidly as posvsible and to bring it up to the best economic production. The importance of protection, especially from fires, is appre- ciated, but only a small ])art of a perfect system of protection could be carried out. The survey, opening and matking of boundaries has been continued. Over 1000 miles of roads or trails have been opened this year, making possible the better management of M|e re- serves, and at the same time making them more accessible m^be citizens of the State. Old material which would otherwise become fuel for fires or a hindrance to young growth has been gathered and sold at a profit. A number of fire observatory towers have l)een built and should now be connected with the foresters' headquarters by telephone. Improvement cuttings have been made and some old and decaying trees manufactured into lumber, the object in all cases being to make room for good, sound, young growth yielding a liigli rate of interest instead of that whidi is decreasing in value. About 1| millions of forest tree seedlings have been planted this year on the reserves and several hundred thousand more were raised in the nurseries and sold at cost to people of the State. In addition to this, the Department gave assistance to many individuals who wanted to make plantations by making ]>lan<ing plans for them ami then superintending Mk* planling ilsclf. in tlic nurseries of llie re Digitized by VjOOQIC 45 M»ive« there are over 5,000,000 swdlings, niul llie area and production of our uursseries are being increased as rapidly as possible. The Dc- pai-tment aims at a planting record ol' 20,000,000 seedlings a year on State holdings alone, and that is none too few. The reserves have been open to the public as recreation grounds and during the year 3,550 persons have obtained camping permits, these being required when it becomes necessary (o build tires for cooking. The camps have been distributed in 22 different counties. There is absolutely no restriction in the matter of hunting and fish- ing on the Reserves, except what the game laws impose. The De- partment wants the people of the State to use the Reserves to their fullest extent, only asking that no needless damage be done to trees and birds, no game laws violated, and no fires built without per- mission. In addition to those obtaining permits, at least 10,000 per- sons have used the Reserves for hunting, fishing, or a day's outing not, however, including the thousands of people who frequently visit Mont Alto and Caledonia Parks on the South Mountain Re- serve. We have no notion of the number of people who go upon the Reserves annually for berries nor of the value of the crop which they harvest. The Forest Academy | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 12 | https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/kane-william-randolph-hearst-campaign-suppress-citizen-kane/ | en | William Randolph Hearst’s Campaign to Suppress Citizen Kane | [
"https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/icons/liberty-mutual-logo.png",
"https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/icons/Carlisle_MasterLogo_BW_100.png",
"https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/media/icons/APSF-horizontal-white_March2020_H115.png",
"https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexp... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"American Experience"
] | 2021-04-30T12:04:53.766515-04:00 | How Orson Welles underestimated the notorious media mogul. | en | https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/kane-william-randolph-hearst-campaign-suppress-citizen-kane/ | It was a clash of the titans. William Randolph Hearst, the lord and ruler of San Simeon. And Orson Welles, the ambitious young man with a golden touch, who set out to dethrone him. It was a fight from which neither man ever fully recovered.
Long before Orson Welles' Citizen Kane was released in 1941, there was a buzz about the movie and the "boy genius" who made it. At a preview screening, nearly everyone present realized that they had seen a work of brilliance—except Hedda Hopper, the leading gossip columnist of the day. She hated the movie, calling it "a vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man."
Citizen Kane was a brutal portrait of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. When Hearst learned through Hopper of Welles' film, he set out to protect his reputation by shutting the film down. Hollywood executives, led by Louis B. Mayer, rallied around Hearst, attempting to buy Citizen Kane in order to burn the negative. At the same time, Hearst's defenders moved to intimidate exhibitors into refusing to show the movie. Threats of blackmail, smears in the newspapers, and FBI investigations were used in the effort.
Hearst's campaign was largely successful. It would be nearly a quarter-century before Citizen Kane was revived--before Welles would gain popular recognition for having created one of cinema's great masterpieces.
"Hearst and Welles were proud, gifted, and destructive—geniuses each in his way," says producer Thomas Lennon. "The fight that ruined them both was thoroughly in character with how they'd lived their lives."
Orson Welles was just twenty-four when he took aim at William Randolph Hearst. The brash upstart was well on his way to claiming Hollywood as his own. A few years earlier, his infamous radio broadcast, War of the Worlds, had terrified listeners and won him the sweetest contract Hollywood had ever seen. With a reputation as a gifted radio and theater director, Welles' arrogance was founded on a track record of success and a lifetime of encouragement.
"Everybody told me from the moment I could hear that I was absolutely marvelous," Welles once told an interviewer.
Hearst was a 76-year-old newspaper magnate whose daring and single-mindedness had made him a publishing legend. The son of a wealthy mine owner, he too had been raised to believe he could have everything. He built his empire selling newspapers filled with entertaining stories that were often scandalous and, occasionally, pure fiction.
"We had a crime story that was going to be featured in a 96-point headline on page one," remembers Vern Whaley, an editor for Hearst's Herald-Examiner. "When I found the address that was in the story, that address was a vacant lot. So I hollered over at the rewrite desk, I said, 'You got the wrong address in this story. This is a vacant lot.' The copy chief that night was a guy named Vic Barnes. And he says, 'Sit down, Vern.' He says, 'The whole story's a fake.'"
Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., remembers his father asking Hearst why he preferred concentrating on newspapers, with their limited, regional appeal, rather than spending more energy on motion pictures and their worldwide audience. Fairbanks recalls Hearst's reply: "I thought of it, but I decided against it. Because you can crush a man with journalism, and you can't with motion pictures."
Hearst began his empire with one small newspaper in San Francisco, then expanded to New York where, with flair and daring, he created the top selling of the city's fourteen newspapers. But he always wanted more, and eventually he controlled the first nationwide chain--with papers in Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and Atlanta. Soon, an estimated one in five Americans was reading a Hearst paper every week.
Hearst's urge to acquire extended to art objects, mansions, and women. He owned eight homes, each stocked with priceless antiques and works of art, but spent most of his time in his California castle. Called San Simeon, the estate was on a piece of property nearly half the size of Rhode Island. George Bernard Shaw commented, "San Simeon was the place God would have built—if he had the money." Hearst's companion was Marion Davies, a showgirl whom he loved and propelled into Hollywood movies. Together they entertained Hollywood's biggest, best, and brightest; San Simeon became a social mecca for the stars.
Marion Davies was widely liked in Hollywood: straightforward, full of humor and charm. The battle over Citizen Kane was in large part a fight over her honor: It was said that Welles's treatment of Davies riled Hearst more than any other aspect of the film. Even Welles agreed that Susan Alexander, the Davies character, was unfair:
"We had somebody very different in the place of Marion Davies. And it seemed to me to be something of a dirty trick, and does still strike me as being something of a dirty trick, what we did to her. And I anticipated the trouble from Hearst for that reason."
Never one to shy away from trouble, Welles built his career on a streak of controversial productions--the more upset and swirl he could create, the better. His production of Macbeth was set in Haiti and employed an all-black cast...his Julius Caesar was reimagined as a contemporary drama about facism...and finally, his radio staging of War of the Worlds, about Martians invading Earth, caused so much terror and uproar it might have ended his career. But his talent and ferocious energy seemed to lift him above the fray, delivering him unscathed to his next challenge. When he graced the cover of Time magazine, he was only twenty-three years old.
Welles was the talk of Hollywood when he arrived. His contract demanded two films, but Welles demanded they be revolutionary. He cast about for months for a project, presenting two ideas to the studio, neither of which went into production. With the pressure mounting, Welles was desperate. "He did a lot of drinking," says Bill Alland, Welles' longtime associate. "He did a lot of chasing around. But he also did a lot of work." When Herman Mankiewicz, a Hollywood writer and friend of Welles who had been a guest at San Simeon, proposed the story of Hearst, Welles seized on the idea as his last best chance.
Producer John Houseman, who worked with Mankiewicz on the Citizen Kane script, recalls the creation and evolution of Charles Foster Kane, the character modeled on Hearst, which Welles himself would play. "We were creating a vehicle suited to a man who, at twenty-four, was only slightly less fabulous than the hero he would be portraying. And the deeper we penetrated into the heart of Charles Foster Kane, the closer we seemed to come to the identity of Orson Welles."
But in the course of making Citizen Kane, Welles' huge ego and his youth would blind him to the extent of Hearst's power and reach; he tragically underestimated Hearst's ability to counterattack.
Indeed, Welles proved no match for the old man. Hearst threatened to expose long-buried Hollywood scandals his newspapers had suppressed at the request of the studios. His papers used Welles' private life against him, making blunt references to communism and questioning Welles' willingness to fight for his country. Major theater chains refused to carry Citizen Kane. Hearst's campaign to discredit Welles was ruthless, skillful, and much aided by Welles himself, who had never bothered to hide his contempt for Hollywood. When Welles' name and his film were mentioned at the 1942 Academy Awards, they were booed. Nominated for nine awards, Citizen Kane lost in every category except one. (Welles shared the award for best screenplay with Herman Mankiewicz.) After the Academy's repudiation of Citizen Kane, RKO quietly retired the film to its vault. | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 10 | https://www.deseret.com/2023/4/28/23699688/oscar-nominated-movies-bombed-box-office/ | en | Oscar-nominated movies that bombed at the box office | [
"https://static.themebuilder.aws.arc.pub/deseretnews/1707933931353.svg",
"https://www.deseret.com/resizer/v2/W6FI5GBJHBBFROVMAXXPD6LD24.jpg?auth=fdff3665fc6ba56d1f151392a37123b5a9a4adf222e535a0a26a92414033e146&focal=581%2C124&width=800&height=450",
"https://www.deseret.com/resizer/v2/https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/Hv3obL9HqyY?feature=oembed",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/P6AaSMfXHbA?feature=oembed",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/qtRKdVHc-cE?feature=oembed",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/NmzuHjWmXOc?feature=oembed",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/D1G2iLSzOe8?feature=oembed",
"https... | [] | [
"culture"
] | null | [
"Margaret Darby",
"www.deseret.com",
"margaret-darby"
] | 2023-04-28T00:00:00 | Movies that did bad at the box office. Good movies that were not popular at the box office. Movies with awards that did not make a lot of money. | en | /pf/resources/deseretnews/favicon.png?d=161 | Deseret News | https://www.deseret.com/2023/4/28/23699688/oscar-nominated-movies-bombed-box-office/ | Achieving massive success at the box office does not necessarily speak to the quality of a movie. These nine movies essentially broke even or lost money at the box office, but all went on to receive Academy Award nominations — and many even took home Oscars.
For reference before getting into the list below, the highest-grossing movie of 2022 was “Avatar: The Way of Water.” It made nearly $700 million domestically and more than $2.3 billion worldwide, per Box Office Mojo.
Here are nine movies that failed to reach financial expectations at the box office but still earned critical acclaim. (All stats are taken from Box Office Mojo).
9. ‘Hugo’ (2011)
Orphaned Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) lives in the walls of a Paris train station. Hugo’s job is to maintain the clocks at the station, but he begins to spend more time wrapped up in a mystery involving his late father and an automaton.
“The film’s craft and technical achievements are of the highest order, combining to create an immaculate present to film lovers everywhere,” The Hollywood Reporter said in praise of the Martin Scorsese-directed film.
“Hugo” received 11 Academy Award nominations and took home five Oscars for: Best visual effects, best cinematography, best sound mixing, best dound rditing and best production design.
Budget: $150 million.
U.S. box office earnings: $73,864,507.
8. ‘Ad Astra’ (2019)
More than a decade ago, Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) left on a daring voyage through space and never returned. Now his son (Brad Pitt) must set out on a mission to Neptune to uncover the truth behind his father’s mysterious disappearance.
“‘Ad Astra’ is beautiful, contemplative, and loaded with meaning — not an action movie, but one that leaves you with plenty to ponder,” wrote Vox.
“Ad Astra” was nominated for several awards, including the Academy Award for best achievement in sound mixing.
Budget: $90 million.
U.S. box office earnings: $50,188,370.
7. ‘Fight Club’ (1999)
A depressed insomniac (Edward Norton) meets a peculiar soap salesman named Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt). Together, the men create an underground club where men who are bored of their mundane lives fight each other.
“An outrageous mixture of brilliant technique, puerile philosophizing, trenchant satire and sensory overload, ‘Fight Club’ is the most incendiary movie to come out of Hollywood in a long time. It’s a mess, but one worth fighting about,” lauded Newsweek.
Now considered by many to be one of the best movies of all time, “Fight Club” earned recognition after its initial release. It was nominated for an Academy Award in best sound editing.
Budget: $63 million.
U.S. box office earnings: $37,030,102.
6. ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ (1994)
Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is sentenced to two life terms in prison for murders he did not commit. Over the course of several years in a brutal prison, Andy befriends Red (Morgan Freeman). Together, the men overcome merciless prison life.
“‘The Shawshank Redemption’ creates a warm hold on our feelings because it makes us a member of a family. Many movies offer us vicarious experiences and quick, superficial emotions. ‘Shawshank’ slows down and looks,” praised Rogerebert.com.
“The Shawshank Redemption” was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including: Best picture, best actor, best original score, best adapted screenplay, best cinematography, best sound mixing and best film editing.
Budget: $25 million.
U.S. box office earnings: $28,767,189.
5. ‘The Fablemans’ (2022)
Sammy Fableman falls in love with film after his parents take him to see a movie in the theater. Throughout adolescence, Sammy practices his filmmaking skills as his he grapples with a complicated home life.
“This is a movie so masterfully made, you can glide along its surface without quite realising all it’s asking of you,” wrote Metro.
Although “The Fablemans” did not take home any Oscars, the film was nominated for seven Academy Awards in 2023, including: Best picture, best original score, best director, best actress, best supporting actor, best original screenplay and best production design.
Budget: $40 million.
U.S. box office earnings: $17,348,945.
4. ‘Missing Link’ (2019)
Mr. Link (Zach Galifianakis) — an eight-foot creature covered in fur — wants to leave his life in the Pacific Northwest behind to track down his long-lost relatives in Shangri-La. With help from two exploring experts, Mr. Link sets off on the daring journey.
“Amid the noisy, epic action of most kid-oriented features, this film’s story is clear and effective: a sweet-hearted narrative of how friendship can broaden one’s horizons,” The Atlantic shared.
“Missing Link” won an Academy Award for best animated feature film — making it one of few noncomputer-generated movies to win in that category.
Budget: $100 million.
U.S. box office earnings: $16,649,539.
3. ‘Women Talking’ (2022)
Based on a true story, the women from a religious colony discover a terrible secret about the colony’s men — for years, the men have drugged the women and raped them. The women begin to talk among themselves as they grapple with the reality of their faith.
“A remarkable ensemble of performers unite for this combustible, timely chamber-piece that hails the return of Polley as an ambitious and empirical filmmaker,” Empire Magazine praised the Sarah Polley-directed film.
The Academy Award for best adapted screenplay went to “Women Talking” in 2023. It was also nominated for best picture.
Budget: $134 million.
U.S. box office earnings: $5,456,531.
2. ‘Citizen Kane’ (1941)
A reporter is assigned to interpret newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane’s dying words. His investigation sheds light on Kane’s life, but he fears he may never learn the true meaning behind Kane’s last word: “Rosebud.”
“It is a two-hour show, filled to the last minute with brilliant incident unreeled in method and effects that sparkle with originality and invention. Within the trade, ‘Kane’ will stimulate keener creative efforts by Hollywood’s top directors,” lauded Variety.
Although largely considered one of the greatest films of all time, “Citizen Kane” took home just one of the nine Academy Award nominations it was given — best original screenplay. The film was also nominated for: Best picture, best director, best actor, best original score, best sound mixing, best film editing, best cinematography and best art direction.
Budget: $839,727.
U.S. box office earnings: $1,627,530.
1. ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’ (1946)
It is Christmastime and George Bailey (James Stewart) is so frustrated with life he is contemplating ending it all. A guardian angel is sent to show George what the world would look like without his good deeds.
“A genuine American classic,” praised the Guardian in 2007.
“It’s a Wonderful Life” was nominated for five Academy Awards including: Best actor, best director, best sound mixing and best film editing.
Budget: $3.2 million. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 45 | https://black-and-white-movies.com/citizen-kane/ | en | Black and White Movies | [
"https://black-and-white-movies.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/cropped-film-logo4.jpg",
"https://black-and-white-movies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/citizen-kane-poster.jpg?w=584",
"https://black-and-white-movies.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/kane-cancan.jpg?w=400&h=302",
"https://black-and-white-movies.co... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/eP_pNny8F18?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wd9z9Y-q3Is?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2016-11-23T11:36:54+00:00 | 1941 movie If you haven't seen it: Many critics will have you believe that Citizen Kane (which tells the life story of Charles Foster Kane, a fictitious newspaper tycoon, based loosely on William Randolph Hearst) is the greatest film of all time. It isn't. Not in the way you are thinking anyway. My son thinks… | en | Black and White Movies | https://black-and-white-movies.com/citizen-kane/ | 1941 movie
If you haven’t seen it:
Many critics will have you believe that Citizen Kane (which tells the life story of Charles Foster Kane, a fictitious newspaper tycoon, based loosely on William Randolph Hearst) is the greatest film of all time. It isn’t. Not in the way you are thinking anyway.
My son thinks the greatest film of all time is The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland, but he’s five. I have a friend who thinks the greatest film of all time is Crocodile Dundee, but he’s … well, he’s probably reading this, so I can’t say. Anyway, the point I am failing to make is that people have their own definitions of what makes a film great. With Citizen Kane apparently, critics loved the revolutionary use of ceilings in the movie! Before Kane, movies were filmed on sound studios with no ceilings, but Orson Welles found a way of getting round this. That’s all fine, but I think it takes more than a ceiling to impress modern audiences. I do not think that the reason Avatar did not win the best picture Oscar in 2010 was that there were not enough ceilings on Pandora.
Okay, it wasn’t just the ceilings the critics loved, but the reason I mention them is to lower your expectations. If you watch it expecting it to be the greatest movie ever, you are going to be disappointed. On the other hand, if you approach it with low expectations, you will find that this is a well-made movie with a good story, interesting characters, and yes, great ceilings.
If you have seen it:
Scroll down past the adverts and the trailer for more.
Click below to watch the trailer:
(If you cannot see the trailer below, your browser may need adjusting)
SPOILER ALERT: The plot summary and comments below contain details that might spoil your enjoyment of the movie if you have not already seen it.
Plot:
Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper publisher and one of the world’s wealthiest men, has died. A team of newsreel reporters are preparing his obituary, and they decide it might be interesting to discover the meaning of the last word he reportedly uttered, which was “Rosebud”. One of the reporters, Jerry, takes on the challenge, and interviews five of Kane’s old friends, getting five very different accounts of his life.
From the private memoirs of banker Mr Thatcher he learns that Kane was born into poverty, but his family became rich when a gold mine was discovered on some land owned by his mother. His mother then sent Kane away to be educated, and to be protected from his violent father. Thatcher became his guardian. When Kane reached adulthood, he decided “it would be fun to run a newspaper” and took over the New York Daily Inquirer.
From Kane’s personal business manager Mr. Bernstein, Jerry learns how Bernstein, Kane, and Kane’s college friend Jedediah Leland transformed the stuffy, unprofitable Inquirer into a top selling newspaper. Kane audaciously poached all the best journalists from a rival paper. These were happy, exciting days, with lavish parties and good times for all of them.
From Leland, Jerry learns about Kane’s first marriage to the niece of the president. He also tells of Kane’s entry into politics – Kane was running for office on an anticorruption platform, but found himself being blackmailed by his opponent, who had discovered he had a secret relationship with a young woman named Susan.
Kane refused to give in to blackmail – the story came out, and Kane lost the election, and his first wife. He then went on to marry Susan, but that marriage also turned sour as Kane pushed her into a singing career she was unsuited for. Kane and Leland then fell out when Leland wrote a damning review of Susan’s show (although in fact Kane finished the review himself when Leland passed out drunk – believing that the integrity of his newspaper should remain intact).
From Kane’s second wife, Susan, Jerry learns how she and Kane moved to Florida, and built the magnificent mansion Xanadu on 49,000 acres. Their marriage disintigrated however, and she left.
Finally, Kane’s butler Raymond at Xanadu, tells Jerry of Kane’s final years, alone and bitter, a virtual recluse.
Jerry never does find out what Rosebud is, but as the movie ends, the camera pans to a room in Xanadu full of junk that workmen are throwing into a furnace. One of the workmen picks up an old sled, and we recognise it as the one Kane used to play with when he was a boy. As the sled is thrown onto the fire, we see that it has the name Rosebud etched onto it.
Steve Sunday Says:
Do you know what the most valuable movie prop of all time is? Darth Vader’s helmet sold at auction for $115,000. The statuette of the Maltese Falcon went for $390,000.
At a 2011 Hollywood auction, the trademark bowler hat worn by Charlie Chaplin in several films, including The Little Tramp, reached $135,300 while a dress and pair of ruby slippers worn by Judy Garland in the filming of The Wizard of Oz sold for $1.75m despite not having appeared in the film. This was nothing compared to the $4.6m that was bid for white dress worn by Marilyn Monroe in the 1955 film The Seven Year Itch.
So how much do you think the Rosebud sled is worth? A million dollars? Ten million? No – the answer is nothing at all, because they burnt it! I bet someone somewhere is wishing that the final scene had featured it being thrown in a skip instead of going up in flames.
What’s that you say? In 1982 Steven Spielberg bought the “Rosebud” sled for $60,000 at a Sotheby’s auction in New York?
No he did not. THEY BURNT IT!
Watch the movie again if you do not believe me. Pay more attention this time.
History Man says:
The character of Charles Foster Kane is primarily based on media tycoon William Randolph Hearst. Hearst was the son of a Californian millionaire who decided to go into the newspaper business. In 1887 he took over the running of his father’s newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner (where his writers included Mark Twain and Jack London) and from there he built up an empire of dozens of newspapers across America. Hearst pioneered a sensationalist style of journalism in order to boost readership, and he also exposed a lot of corruption.
Hearst succeeded in being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, but he was unsuccessful in his attempts to become elected mayor, governor, and Lieutenant Governor of New York, being the victim of at least one dirty-tricks campaign.
In 1919 Hearst began building a huge mansion at San Simeon in California. He filled it with art and valuable antiques, and it was known as “Hearst Castle”. At about this time he separated from his wife, with whom he had five sons, and began living with the well-known film actress Marion Davies.
Hearst’s empire peaked in the late 1920s but suffered in the Great Depression of the 1930s. He did recover after World War II, and died in 1951, aged 88.
Trivia Trish Says:
The film was originally a flop at the box office.
It was nominated for 9 Oscars but won only one, for best original screenplay. At the Oscar ceremony, the audience booed every time the film’s name was read out as a nomination. It was beaten for best film by How Green Was My Valley.
The main scriptwriter was Herman J. Mankiewicz (with Welles as co-writer). Mankiewicz was also the main scriptwriter for The Wizard of Oz.
When Kane says “Don’t believe everything you hear on the radio” this is an in-joke. It references a famous radio broadcast that Welles once made where he convinced many Americans that the Earth really was being invaded by aliens.
William Randolph Hearst tried to get the film banned by accusing Orson Welles of being a communist.
Chris the Critic says:
Citizen Kane was Orson Welles’ first film as a director. He was only 25, but was already well respected for his work in radio and theatre. The deal he had made with the studio gave him complete creative control over the movie, which was unheard of for a first-time director.
One of the main reason the film is so highly regarded by critics is that it pioneered many techniques that are commonplace today. Here is a selection:
“Deep focus” is where all items on screen are in focus, not just the items in the foreground.
Coated lenses were used for the first time.
Welles pioneered a way of having ceilings in the sound studios, which had not been possible before.
For those scenes where Kane was an old man, Welles spent over six hours each day in makeup.
The camera angles are such that we are looking up to the strong characters and down on the weak characters. Welles actually borrowed this idea from John Ford’s Stagecoach.
Top Ten Citizen Kanes:
The title “Citizen Kane” has become synonymous with the word “masterpiece”. Saying that something is the Citizen Kane of its genre (e.g. “The Godfather” is the Citizen Kane of gangster movies) means that it is the best and most respected of its type (or possibly, depending on the reviewer, the most overrated and enjoyed only by critics). Here are a few more examples we have heard, or read, or made up for your amusement:
10. “Blade Runner” is the Citizen Kane of sci-fi movies
9. “Touch of Evil” is the Citizen Kane of B movies
8. “The Swarm” is the Citizen Kane of Bee movies
7. “Hot Tub Time Machine” is the Citizen Kane of Hot Tub movies
6. “Shakes the Clown” is the Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies
5. “You Got Served” is the Citizen Kane of break-dancing movies
4. “The Room” is the Citizen Kane of bad movies
3. “The Wicker Man” (original) is the Citizen Kane of horror movies
2. “The Wicker Man” (“No, not the bees, not the bees!”!) is the Citizen Kane of bad remakes
1. “Citizen Kane” is the Citizen Kane of classic old black and white movies
Main Cast and Crew:
Orson Welles – Charles Foster Kane
William Alland – Jerry Thompson, reporter.
Ray Collins – Jim W. Gettys, Kane’s political rival.
Ruth Warrick – Emily Monroe Norton Kane, Kane’s first wife.
Dorothy Comingore – Susan Alexander Kane, Kane’s second wife.
Joseph Cotten – Jedediah Leland, old friend & reporter on Kane’s paper.
George Coulouris – Walter Thatcher, banker & Kane’s legal guardian.
Everett Sloane – Mr Bernstein, Kane’s loyal friend and employee.
Back up to Drama | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 44 | https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-citizen-kane-1941 | en | Citizen Kane movie review & film summary (1941) | [
"https://www.rogerebert.com/wp-content/themes/roger-ebert/source/images/roger-ebert-logo.svg",
"https://www.rogerebert.com/wp-content/themes/roger-ebert/source/images/search-thin.svg",
"https://www.rogerebert.com/wp-content/themes/roger-ebert/source/images/stars-fill.svg",
"https://www.rogerebert.com/wp-conte... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | “I don't think any word can explain a man's life,” says one of the searchers through the warehouse of treasures left behind by Charles Foster Kane. Then we | en | Roger Ebert | https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-citizen-kane-1941 | “I don’t think any word can explain a man’s life,” says one of
the searchers through the warehouse of treasures left behind by Charles Foster
Kane. Then we get the famous series of shots leading to the closeup of the word
“Rosebud” on a sled that has been tossed into a furnace, its paint curling in
the flames. We remember that this was Kane’s childhood sled, taken from him as
he was torn from his family and sent east to boarding school.
Rosebud is the emblem of the security, hope and innocence of
childhood, which a man can spend his life seeking to regain. It is the green
light at the end of Gatsby’s pier; the leopard atop Kilimanjaro, seeking nobody
knows what; the bone tossed into the air in “2001.” It is that yearning after
transience that adults learn to suppress. “Maybe Rosebud was something he
couldn’t get, or something he lost,” says Thompson, the reporter assigned to
the puzzle of Kane’s dying word. “Anyway, it wouldn’t have explained anything.”
True, it explains nothing, but it is remarkably satisfactory as a demonstration
that nothing can be explained. “Citizen Kane” likes playful paradoxes like
that. Its surface is as much fun as any movie ever made. Its depths surpass
understanding. I have analyzed it a shot at a time with more than 30 groups,
and together we have seen, I believe, pretty much everything that is there on
the screen. The more clearly I can see its physical manifestation, the more I
am stirred by its mystery.
It
is one of the miracles of cinema that in 1941 a first-time director; a cynical,
hard-drinking writer; an innovative cinematographer, and a group of New York
stage and radio actors were given the keys to a studio and total control, and
made a masterpiece. “Citizen Kane” is more than a great movie; it is a
gathering of all the lessons of the emerging era of sound, just as “Birth of a
Nation” assembled everything learned at the summit of the silent era, and “2001”
pointed the way beyond narrative. These peaks stand above all the others.
The
origins of “Citizen Kane” are well known. Orson Welles, the boy wonder of radio
and stage, was given freedom by RKO Radio Pictures to make any picture he
wished. Herman Mankiewicz, an experienced screenwriter, collaborated with him
on a screenplay originally called “The American.” Its inspiration was the life
of William Randolph Hearst, who had put together an empire of newspapers, radio
stations, magazines and news services, and then built to himself the flamboyant
monument of San Simeon, a castle furnished by rummaging the remains of nations.
Hearst was Ted Turner, Rupert Murdoch and Bill Gates rolled up into an enigma.
Arriving
in Hollywood at age 25, Welles brought a subtle knowledge of sound and dialogue
along with him; on his Mercury Theater of the Air, he’d experimented with audio
styles more lithe and suggestive than those usually heard in the movies. As his
cinematographer he hired Gregg Toland, who on John Ford’s “The Long Voyage Home”
(1940) had experimented with deep focus photography–with shots where
everything was in focus, from the front to the back, so that composition and
movement determined where the eye looked first. For his cast Welles assembled
his New York colleagues, including Joseph Cotten as Jed Leland, the hero’s best
friend; Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander, the young woman Kane thought he
could make into an opera star; Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein, the mogul’s
business wizard; Ray Collins as Gettys, the corrupt political boss, and Agnes
Moorehead as the boy’s forbidding mother. Welles himself played Kane from age
25 until his deathbed, using makeup and body language to trace the progress of
a man increasingly captive inside his needs. “All he really wanted out of life
was love,” Leland says. “That’s Charlie’s story–how he lost it.”
The
structure of “Citizen Kane” is circular, adding more depth every time it passes
over the life. The movie opens with newsreel obituary footage that briefs us on
the life and times of Charles Foster Kane; this footage, with its portentous
narration, is Welles’ bemused nod in the direction of the “March of Time”
newsreels then being produced by another media mogul, Henry Luce. They provide
a map of Kane’s trajectory, and it will keep us oriented as the screenplay
skips around in time, piecing together the memories of those who knew him.
Curious
about Kane’s dying word, “rosebud,” the newsreel editor assigns Thompson, a
reporter, to find out what it meant. Thompson is played by William Alland in a
thankless performance; he triggers every flashback, yet his face is never seen.
He questions Kane’s alcoholic mistress, his ailing old friend, his rich
associate and the other witnesses, while the movie loops through time. As often
as I’ve seen “Citizen Kane,” I’ve never been able to firmly fix the order of
the scenes in my mind. I look at a scene and tease myself with what will come
next. But it remains elusive: By flashing back through the eyes of many
witnesses, Welles and Mankiewicz created an emotional chronology set free from
time.
The
movie is filled with bravura visual moments: the towers of Xanadu; candidate
Kane addressing a political rally; the doorway of his mistress dissolving into
a front-page photo in a rival newspaper; the camera swooping down through a
skylight toward the pathetic Susan in a nightclub; the many Kanes reflected
through parallel mirrors; the boy playing in the snow in the background as his
parents determine his future; the great shot as the camera rises straight up
from Susan’s opera debut to a stagehand holding his nose, and the subsequent
shot of Kane, his face hidden in shadow, defiantly applauding in the silent
hall.
Along
with the personal story is the history of a period. “Citizen Kane” covers the
rise of the penny press (here Joseph Pulitzer is the model), the
Hearst-supported Spanish-American War, the birth of radio, the power of
political machines, the rise of fascism, the growth of celebrity journalism. A
newsreel subtitle reads: “1895 to 1941. All of these years he covered, many of
these he was.” The screenplay by Mankiewicz and Welles (which got an Oscar, the
only one Welles ever won) is densely constructed and covers an amazing amount
of ground, including a sequence showing Kane inventing the popular press; a
record of his marriage, from early bliss to the famous montage of increasingly
chilly breakfasts; the story of his courtship of Susan Alexander and her
disastrous opera career, and his decline into the remote master of Xanadu (“I
think if you look carefully in the west wing, Susan, you’ll find about a dozen
vacationists still in residence”).
“Citizen
Kane” knows the sled is not the answer. It explains what Rosebud is, but not
what Rosebud means. The film’s construction shows how our lives, after we are
gone, survive only in the memories of others, and those memories butt up
against the walls we erect and the roles we play. There is the Kane who made
shadow figures with his fingers, and the Kane who hated the traction trust; the
Kane who chose his mistress over his marriage and political career, the Kane
who entertained millions, the Kane who died alone. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 2 | http://polsci167.blogspot.com/2007/07/citizen-kane-framing-possibilities.html | en | Politics and Film: Citizen Kane | [
"https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7tPQHgJQ6M0h4NsDlhucaMUS0qc0XYJ92jwq_49Nv1DvCLYwJA5SGJYJoiakNJ1uTIw-1sGwKZvX-GbCHMpsp8c5TvGwItKRoxX__wJfDtxrBM9tnKx98D4dbKkxwI8BbvIHQAnJ3exg/s320/Citizen+Kane+01.jpg",
"https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdDx7T12fK5YCPbdxOyml6YJ4... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"View my complete profile",
"Sir F & Mga Magaaral"
] | null | Ever since I got a copy of the film, I’ve watched it for over five times and even memorize several lines. A number of them have something to... | http://polsci167.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://polsci167.blogspot.com/2007/07/citizen-kane-framing-possibilities.html | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 11 | https://cultcritic.co/boxoffice/titles/142376/citizen-kane | en | CC BOX OFFICE® | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | client/favicon/icon-144x144.png | null | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 13 | https://www.bfi.org.uk/film/f4c92833-af39-5cd6-a41e-8df5933d0dc1/citizen-kane | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://www.bfi.org.uk/dist/client/e51a86bb7ce82a9e9741.svg",
"https://www.bfi.org.uk/dist/client/e51a86bb7ce82a9e9741.svg",
"https://www.bfi.org.uk/dist/client/e51a86bb7ce82a9e9741.svg",
"https://www.bfi.org.uk/dist/client/3a7f3865ac295e349615.png",
"https://core-cms.bfi.org.uk/sites/default/files/core/fu... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"BFI"
] | null | Famously sitting at the top of the Sight and Sound Greatest Films of All Time poll from 1962 to 2002, Orson Welles’s debut, about newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane, remains an enduring classic. | en | BFI | https://www.bfi.org.uk/film/f4c92833-af39-5cd6-a41e-8df5933d0dc1/citizen-kane | The 26-year-old Orson Welles, already renowned for his work in radio and theatre, used the unprecedented artistic license offered to him by RKO to create a fictionalised portrait of one of America’s most powerful men – press baron William Randolph Hearst. Charting the rise of Charles Foster Kane (played by Welles himself) – who decides to start a newspaper with his inherited fortune – Welles’ film is a classic story of the corrupting effects of power.
The use of deep-focus photography (keeping both foreground and background in focus) and abstracted camera angles, the non-chronological narrative structure and overlapping dialogue, were just some of the myriad formal innovations that Welles brought together for his groundbreaking debut. Such novelty and controversy proved a curse for Welles, whose career never enjoyed such indulgence again.
“Citizen Kane remains the ultimate commentary on American culture since the early 20th century. It conveys America’s inherent polarities (individualism vs collective impulses; libertarianism vs puritanism; innocence vs corruption; the underdog mentality to rebel against oppression vs the impulse to rule over the masses through duping strategies) via a deft synergy of form and content. It has never been more rewarding to screen and talk about this film than in our current political moment.” Roy Grundmann
“The former champion still feels like a grand summation of film’s early development as an artform and a glimpse of the future, too. At the same time, it’s a hugely entertaining portrait of the media narcissism and demagoguery that underscore American politics.” Scott Tobias
“It still amazes for its formal bravado, a barrage of cinematographic strategies which retain their innovative resonances. The film’s reputation as representing the apogee of an ossified ‘canon’ of outstanding films should not minimise its qualities – it deserves to be so recognised. It combines the restless energy of its subject with formal experimentation which demonstrates the artistry of filmmaking as a collaborative enterprise when new technical approaches were being explored.” Sarah Street
“Sadly, it’s fashionable now to chip away at its greatness. This temptation should be resisted. The audacious American masterpiece of the 20th century, not only for its cinematic innovations and storytelling vigour, but for how accurately it dissects the ‘American character’.” Eddie Muller
“What else is there to say about Kane? It will always be remembered for novelty, for vision, for the sheer audacity of its existence.” Oris Aigbokhaevbolo
“The ultimate in movie baroque. Welles’s film is a twisted pearl – glorious, florid, overweening – about crazed ambition and the virtues and innocences it crushes in its wake.” Nigel Andrews
“A film that amply rewards repeated viewings, revealing new depths, new nuanced details, new mysteries. There is no greatest film, but if there were, for me this would surely be the strongest contender.” Geoff Andrew | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 9 | https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/15-citizen-kane%3Flanguage%3Den-US | en | Citizen Kane | [
"https://www.themoviedb.org/assets/2/v4/logos/v2/blue_short-8e7b30f73a4020692ccca9c88bafe5dcb6f8a62a4c6bc55cd9ba82bb2cd95f6c.svg",
"https://media.themoviedb.org/t/p/w300_and_h450_bestv2/sav0jxhqiH0bPr2vZFU0Kjt2nZL.jpg",
"https://media.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/9ghgSC0MA082EL6HLCW3GalykFD.jpg",
"https://medi... | [] | [] | [
"Movies",
"TV Shows",
"Streaming",
"Reviews",
"API",
"Actors",
"Actresses",
"Photos",
"User Ratings",
"Synopsis",
"Trailers",
"Teasers",
"Credits",
"Cast"
] | null | [] | null | »Rosebud« - das ist das letzte Wort, das Charles Foster Kane im Sterbebett auf seinem Schloss Xanadu haucht. "Citizen Kane" schildert die Geschichte des Zeitungsmagnaten, der die öffentliche Meinung Amerikas über Jahrzehnte beherrschte. Sein geschäftliches Leben begann mit viel Enthusiasmus und dem Bekenntnis zur Wahrheit und Unbestechlichkeit. Dann kam der Erfolg, mit ihm Ehrgeiz und schließlich, als er diesen nicht befriedigt sah, die Loslösung von seinen Prinzipien hin zur Korruption durch Macht. Der Reporter Jerry Thompson versucht, mehr über diesen geheimnisvollen Mann zu erfahren... | de | /assets/2/apple-touch-icon-57ed4b3b0450fd5e9a0c20f34e814b82adaa1085c79bdde2f00ca8787b63d2c4.png | The Movie Database | https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/15-citizen-kane | You need to be logged in to continue. Click here to login or here to sign up. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 50 | https://issuu.com/dudleymosh/docs/history_of_film | en | History of Film | [
"https://static.isu.pub/fe/product-header-frontend/387efd2/31d186ba39f38e8c4fac.png",
"https://static.issuu.com/fe/silkscreen/0.0.3042/icons/gradient/icon-canva-gradient.svg",
"https://static.isu.pub/fe/product-header-frontend/387efd2/1e794a8c4ec65e549678.png",
"https://photo.isu.pub/dudleymosh/photo_large.jp... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2012-04-10T00:00:00+00:00 | Book by David Parkinson, "History of Film," reprinted in 2002 by Thames & Hudson world of art. | en | /favicon.ico | Issuu | https://issuu.com/dudleymosh/docs/history_of_film | Welcome to Issuu’s blog: home to product news, tips, resources, interviews (and more) related to content marketing and publishing.
Here you'll find an answer to your question. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 52 | https://www.rossmorinfilm.com/the-citizen-kane-of-bad-movies.html | en | Ross Morin on the most famous quote about the most important bad movie of all time | [
"https://www.rossmorinfilm.com/uploads/5/9/1/2/59128335/published/e88ccf9b-2603-4d55-b412-cc056c7cc3d3.jpg?1666636168",
"https://www.rossmorinfilm.com/uploads/5/9/1/2/59128335/published/48ab8cf8-bba3-432a-80e6-66584c8bece0.jpg?1666636172",
"https://www.rossmorinfilm.com/uploads/5/9/1/2/59128335/published/94c3d8... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/SO3QHCO3mCo?list=RDSO3QHCO3mCo",
"https://archive.org/embed/WJLA_20090727_223000_ABCs_World_News_With_Charles_Gibson?start=1560&end=1620"
] | [] | [
"Citizen Kane of Bad Movies",
"The Room",
"Tommy Wiseau",
"Ross Morin",
"The Room Citizen Kane",
"Citizen Kane",
"Ross Morin Tommy Wiseau",
"Ross Morin Citizen Kane"
] | null | [] | null | Ross Morin called Tommy Wiseau's The Room, "The Citizen Kane of bad movies." | en | Ross Morin | https://www.rossmorinfilm.com/the-citizen-kane-of-bad-movies.html | "THE CITIZEN KANE OF BAD MOVIES"
At the Ziegfeld Theater in NYC - the first time I met Tommy and Greg. That happiness cannot be faked.
A FEW OTHERS
used my quote to talk about the film. Charles Gibson did a piece on The Room and Greg Gutfeld on Fox Redeye joked, "One professor called it the Citizen Kane of bad movies -- but f*** him!" That's right, Fox News said the F-word about me. I still get chills...
CONNECTICUT COLLEGE FILM STUDIES
hosted author and co-star of The Room, Greg Sestero, to read from his book The Disaster Artist. It was another one of the best nights of my life; I can't remember ever laughing so hard. My students would surely have thought me crazy - if they hadn't been laughing so hard themselves. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 30 | https://movies.fandom.com/wiki/Orson_Welles | en | Orson Welles | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/f/ff/Orson_Welles_1937.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070325001817 | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/f/ff/Orson_Welles_1937.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070325001817 | [
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20230601122650",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/f/ff/Orson_Welles_1937.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20070325001817",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/3/32/Wikiquote... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Moviepedia"
] | 2024-07-12T14:06:28+00:00 | George Orson Welles (May 6, 1915 – October 10, 1985) was generally considered to be one of Hollywood's greatest directors, as well as a fine actor, broadcaster and screenwriter. His first feature film, Citizen Kane (1941), is universally acknowledged as an important step in the history of cinema... | en | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/filmguide/images/4/4a/Site-favicon.ico/revision/latest?cb=20230313154015 | Moviepedia | https://movies.fandom.com/wiki/Orson_Welles | Name
George Orson Welles
Birthplace
Kenosha, Wisconsin
Birth date
May 6, 1915 - October 10, 1985
Occupation
Actor, director, writer, producer, voice actor
George Orson Welles (May 6, 1915 – October 10, 1985) was generally considered to be one of Hollywood's greatest directors, as well as a fine actor, broadcaster and screenwriter. His first feature film, Citizen Kane (1941), is universally acknowledged as an important step in the history of cinema and widely cited by critics as among the best films ever made.
Early career[]
Welles was born in 1915 in Kenosha, Wisconsin. He had an unusual childhood, being somewhat of a prodigy, and his personal relationships suffered as a result. His mother died when he was nine, and his father, Richard Head Welles, receded into the past, a drunkard.
Welles made his first plays while at the Todd School for Boys in Woodstock, Illinois and was brought under the guidance of the principal, Roger Hill, who became a surrogate father to Welles. The sometimes seen work Hearts of Age was made there while he was a student and also stars his first wife, Virginia Nicholson. He later made his stage debut at the famous Gate Theatre in Dublin, Ireland in 1931 when he talked himself onto the stage and appeared in small supporting roles, and by 1934 was a radio director/actor in the United States, working with some of the cast that later became the Mercury Theatre. In that year, he married the actress and socialite Virginia Nicholson. Welles drew a great deal of attention in 1937 with a production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar set in Fascist Italy and a voodoo-themed version of Macbeth featuring a primarily African-American cast. Shortly afterward, he and producer John Houseman founded the Mercury Theatre company after they worked together on The Cradle Will Rock.
Orson Welles' signatureWelles began playing The Shadow in late 1937; his deep voice suited the role well. In the summer of 1938, Welles and the Mercury Theatre began weekly broadcasts of short radio plays based on classic or popular literary works. Their October 30 broadcast of that year was an adaptation of The War of the Worlds. This brought Welles his first public notoriety on a national level—the program created panic among some listeners who found it completely convincing. Welles's adaptation of H. G. Wells's classic novel simulated a news broadcast, cutting into a routine dance music program to describe the landing of Martian spacecraft in Grovers Mill, New Jersey. The innovative broadcast was realistic enough to frighten many in the audience into believing that an actual Martian invasion was in progress. Recordings of the broadcast are still available (see old-time radio and also the UK Region 2 DVD of Citizen Kane). The publicity that resulted from this led to the offer of a three-picture Hollywood contract from RKO.
Welles in Hollywood[]
Welles toyed with various ideas for his first project for RKO, settling briefly on an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness before ultimately rejecting it. RKO's budget projections made it impractical. In a display of his avant garde sensibility, Welles planned to film the action entirely from the protagonist's point of view. With his initial ideas bearing no fruit, Welles finally found a suitable project in an idea suggested by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. Initially called American, it would eventually become Welles' first feature film, Citizen Kane (1941).
Welles was once again the centre of controversy with Citizen Kane. The gossip writer Louella Parsons convinced the yellow-press magnate, William Randolph Hearst, that he was the basis for Kane, with the result that Hearst's media empire boycotted the film. On its release, this event overshadowed the film's radical formal innovations. Welles is said to have sardonically remarked, concerning Hearst's attitude, that if he were to do a movie about the journalism magnate, the fact would be more grand and shockingly unbelievable than the fiction. This possibly apocryphal quote is uttered by Liev Schreiber (as Welles) in the 1999 TV movie RKO 281.
Welles' second film for RKO was the more traditional The Magnificent Ambersons, adapted from the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Booth Tarkington, and on which RKO executives hoped to make back the money lost by Citizen Kane's relative commercial failure.
Simultaneously, Welles worked with his Mercury Theatre fellows on a spy thriller, Journey Into Fear, which he co-wrote with Joseph Cotten. In addition to acting in the film, Welles was also a producer. Direction was credited solely to Norman Foster, but the film contains several expressionistic sequences indicating input by Welles. Welles denied having directed the film, but the visual style is very similar to his credited works. Whatever the case, Welles played a major role in its production, but he expressed disappointment at the finished product.
During the production of Ambersons, Welles was asked to make a documentary film about South America on behalf of the U. S. Government. Welles left the United States to begin shooting this documentary after putting together the first rough cut of The Magnificent Ambersons, on the understanding that further editing decisions would be carried out via telegram. At this point RKO, in a perilous financial situation and fearing another commercial failure, wrested control of the film from Welles' Mercury Productions staff, cut over fifty minutes of footage, and added a reshot, upbeat ending: the cut footage, including Welles's original ending to the film, has been lost, apparently permanently. This event marked the beginning of a recurring pattern in Welles' Hollywood career of damaging executive interference. Ironically, Welles' South American documentary, entitled It's All True, never saw completion in Welles' lifetime. The surviving footage was released in 1993.
In 1946, International Pictures released The Stranger, starring Edward G. Robinson and Loretta Young as well as Welles himself. Sam Spiegel produced the film, which gave Welles an opportunity to salvage—briefly—his reputation in Hollywood. A noir-ish suspense film about the hunt for a Nazi war criminal, The Stranger was Welles' only commercial success as a director. Welles supposedly made the film to prove that he could make a conventional picture within time and budget constraints. He followed The Stranger with another noir drama for Columbia Pictures, The Lady from Shanghai. Welles played the protagonist, while his second wife, Rita Hayworth, played one of the villains. Hayworth said of Orson Welles, "...a most brilliant auteur and lover. I just wish he hadn't become so fat. It affected his performance in movies and the bedroom." Like The Magnificent Ambersons, The Lady from Shanghai suffered heavy editing by its studio, with approximately an hour removed from Welles' final cut. The excised portions are believed to be lost permanently. Welles' notes for the film suggest that these portions would have aided audiences' comprehension of the story. Despite the editing, the theatrical cut still contains many examples of Welles' Expressionist film-making. Once released, the film was savaged by critics for its convoluted plot, and audiences disliked Hayworth as a villain. Welles' marriage to Hayworth—already troubled during filming—ended shortly after the production wrapped.
Welles changed studios once again, moving to Republic Pictures, a studio with a reputation for making B movies. The move marked a return to Shakespeare for Welles—he chose to direct and star in an idiosyncratic production of Macbeth. Working with a very limited budget, Welles fashioned a Macbeth that emphasized the darkness of the play's themes and characters. Unfortunately for Welles, the finished film once again proved unpalatable to the movie-going public.
Welles after Hollywood[]
Frustrated by his experience with the studio system, Welles left Hollywood in 1948. The following year, he made a notable appearance in front of the camera. In Graham Greene's The Third Man, Welles (as Harry Lime) gave the infamous "Cuckoo Clock" speech. 'In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love—they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.' This is the only piece of dialogue in the film which Greene himself did not write: Welles penned it himself and insisted that it be put in. Greene is reputed to have hated it (possibly because the cuckoo clock was not, in fact, a Swiss invention).
From 1949 to 1952, Welles made a remarkable Othello, filming the entire work on location in Europe and Morocco. The film was not well received, partly because the dubbing after the fact was very poor. In 1992, this film was restored from a nitrate negative that had been feared lost. The entire score was rerecorded, and the result is a powerful rendition that belies the usual view that Welles had lost his touch. He made a virtue of the choppiness due to having no chance to fill holes in the studio after filming on location. The cinemetography is remarkable, and the entire effect gripping.
Barring a brief return in 1958 to make Touch of Evil (which was also butchered by the studio, but has since been restored to something close to Welles' vision), the rest of Welles' directorial career was spent in Europe, his films self-financed with acting fees or, later, funded by sympathetic producers. On almost all of these projects he retained final cut, but the independence thus gained also resulted in drastically reduced budgets and technical facilities. Despite such setbacks, some of Welles' best work was produced during this period. He was an aficionado of stage magic and often appeared at Hollywood's Magic Castle. He even did TV, performing a few tricks with Lucille Ball as his assistant in an episode of I Love Lucy. In his later years, when his weight had ballooned, he appeared in a sketch on Johnny Carson's show, playing an extremely heavy and tyrannical king not unlike Henry VIII.
Welles starred in many of his films and wrote the scripts, often using the talents of the Mercury Theatre. These included several stories from English literature, such as Macbeth (1948), Jane Eyre (which he produced uncredited, and in which he appeared opposite Joan Fontaine), and Chimes at Midnight (1965), an underrated classic in which Welles played Falstaff.
Television[]
A lesser known, but still important, aspect of Welles' career was his work in television. The Orson Welles Sketchbook (1955) was created for the BBC and featured Welles telling stories and drawing pictures to illustrate them. The director also created Around the World with Orson Welles (1955) for the BBC. In this series he gleefully experimented with a film-essay format, foreshadowing the later F for Fake (1974). The Fountain of Youth (1958) was made for American TV and in it Welles offers some possibilities for expanding the medium's vocabulary. The Immortal Story (1968) was filmed for French television and stars not only Welles himself, but also Jeanne Moreau, one of the most loved actresses of the French New Wave cinema; based on a short story by Isak Dinesen, it is a spare and somber meditation on old age, isolation, and the inability to create. One of his most playful efforts was Portrait of Gina (1958), in which the director/narrator wanders through Italy, finally arriving at Gina Lollobrigida's home at the end of the film. Welles continued to work in TV through the 60s, 70s and 80s, but little of the work he directed from this period was ever broadcast. A version of The Merchant of Venice (1969) was not completed because a reel was stolen and never recovered. Clips from unfinished TV projects appear in the documentary Orson Welles: The One-Man Band (1995), a fascinating but bittersweet look at many of the director's varied efforts,
Unfinished projects[]
Welles' exile from Hollywood and reliance on independent finance meant that many of his later cinema projects were filmed in a piecemeal fashion and some were not completed at all. In the mid 1950s Welles worked on a film adaptation of Cervantes' Don Quixote, initially on a commission from CBS television. CBS was unhappy with the original half hour television play and rejected the footage. Welles gleefully took this as an opportunity to expand the film to feature length, developing the screenplay to take Quixote and Sancho Panza into the modern age (an idea that later formed the basis of Jean-Marie Poiré's Les Visiteurs). Filming continued in a fragmentary fashion for a number of years whenever cast and crew could be assembled in one place. The project was finally abandoned with the death of Francisco Reiguera, the actor playing Quixote, in 1969. An incomplete version of the film was released in 1992.
In 1970 Welles began shooting The Other Side of the Wind. Finance was from a number of sources, the largest of which being an Iranian company based in Paris and run by the brother-in-law of the Shah of Iran. The film is apparently the story of the efforts of a film director (played by John Huston) to complete his last Hollywood movie and is largely set at a lavish party. Although in 1972 the film was reported by Welles as being "96% complete" its legal ownership became a matter of dispute. Argument continued for a number of years until the 1979 Iranian Revolution effectively consigned it to a legal limbo. The negative remained in a Paris vault until in 2004 Welles's friend Peter Bogdanovich (who also acted in the film) announced his intention to resolve the legal difficulties and complete the production.
Another unfinished project was The Big Brass Ring, the script of which was adapted and filmed by US-director George Hickenlooper in 1999.
Mark Millar wrote an article about a failed Orson Welles Batman project. This generated a considerable amount of buzz, especially on Ain't It Cool News, but the rumor has since been proven false. Welles did, at one point prior to Kane, consider reprising his role as Lamont Cranston for a Shadow film project. But, as with the mooted film adaptation of War of the Worlds, he opted to forego these commercial projects in favor of more personal works.
Final years[]
During his career he won one Oscar and was nominated for a further four. One of his last notable film appearances was as Cardinal Wolsey in A Man for All Seasons (1966). In 1971 the Academy gave him an Honorary award "For superlative artistry and versatility in the creation of motion pictures".
Overweight for decades, he became profoundly obese in his later years. He capitalized on his image in various advertising campaigns hawking certain brands of wines, hot dogs, and correspondence courses. A bootleg of the recording session for one of his later commercials still circulates on the Internet and elsewhere, often known simply as Frozen Peas. In the recording, Welles can be heard brazenly chastising the commercial's producers for its poor script and their "impossible, meaningless" directions, before walking out on the session, telling them that "no money is worth this." Another bootlegged recording features a clearly inebriated Welles struggling, and failing, to get through his lines in a commercial for a California champagne.
Welles died of a heart attack in Hollywood, California at age 70 on October 10, 1985 (the same day as Yul Brynner). The final role Welles performed was that of the planet-eater Unicron in the animated Transformers: The Movie, recording his lines mere weeks before his passing. However, it was not his last appearance on the screen, as the previously-filmed 1987 independent movie Someone To Love, was released two years following his death. His last TV appearance was in the introduction of the episode "The Dream Sequence Always Rings Twice" of the series Moonlighting. Welles also recorded a narration for the 1987 re-release of The Alan Parsons Project's Tales of Mystery and Imagination shortly before his death.
Welles' ashes were placed at the estate of a friend in Ronda, Spain, at his request. Some reports mention that some of his ashes may have been scattered in the town's famous Plaza de Toros, the oldest bullfighting ring in Spain that is still used. Prominent critic Geoff Andrew has said, 'He remains that rarity – a genius of the cinema.'
Trivia[]
Orson Welles' distinctive voice was used in Warner Brothers' animated cartoon "Pinky and The Brain", with Maurice LaMarche providing the voice of The Brain with a dead-on impersonation of Welles.
Initially George Lucas wanted to use Orson Welles' voice for Darth Vader in Star Wars. However, he decided that Welles' voice is too well known. In the end, Welles was hired to read the text for the first trailer of the movie.
Welles also narrated pieces for the Odinist heavy metal band Manowar, on their Battle Hymns (1982) and Fighting The World (1987) albums, the latter released two years after Welles' death.
Selected filmography[]
Director
The Hearts of Age (1934)
Too Much Johnson (1938)
Citizen Kane (1941)
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)
Journey Into Fear (1943) - co-director with Norman Foster
The Stranger (1946)
The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
Macbeth (1948)
Othello (1952)
Mr. Arkadin (1955)
Touch of Evil (1958)
The Trial (1962)
Chimes at Midnight (1965)
The Immortal Story (1968)
Don Quixote (1969; released 1992)
The Other Side of the Wind (1970–76, released 2018)
F for Fake (aka Vérités et mensonges) (1974)
Actor
The Hearts of Age (1934)
Too Much Johnson (1938)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Journey Into Fear (1943)
Jane Eyre (1944)
Tomorrow Is Forever (1946)
The Stranger (1946)
The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
Macbeth (1948)
The Third Man (1949)
Othello (1952)
Mr. Arkadin (1955)
Moby Dick (1956)
Touch of Evil (1958)
The Trial (1962)
Chimes at Midnight (1965)
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
The Immortal Story (1968)
Don Quixote (1969; released 1992)
F for Fake (aka Vérités et mensonges) (1974)
Transformers: The Movie (1986) - voice actor
Further reading[]
Cowie, Peter. The Cinema of Orson Welles, Da Capo Press, 1973.
Mac Liammóir, Micháel. Put Money in Thy Purse: The Filming of Orson Welles' Othello, Methuen, 1976.
McBride, Joseph. Orson Welles, Da Capo Press, 1996.
Naremore, James. The Magic World of Orson Welles, Southern Methodist University Press, 1989.
Naremore, James. Citizen Kane: A Casebook, Oxford University Press, 2004.
Welles, Orson et al. This is Orson Welles, Da Capo Press, 1998.
[]
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations from or about:
Orson Welles at the Internet Movie Database (IMDB)
Classic Movies (1939 - 1969): Orson Welles
War Of The Worlds website provides history of the broadcast and additional historical material on War Of The Worlds
Mercury Theatre on the Air website provides MP3 and Real Audio files of Welles' radio dramas
Wellesnet The Orson Welles Web Resource
The Magnificent Ambersons a site that details the strange saga of Welles' second film
The Unseen Welles a guide to Welles' unfinished and unreleased projects
The Orson Welles collection at the Lilly Library
Senses of Cinema: Great Directors Critical Database
UBU Web's 365 Days Project Outtake from Welles's Frozen Peas commercial. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 29 | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/reviews/ | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/batch/1/OP/A1EVAM02EL8SFB:136-9541992-6522925:TK7MYTC3EJM90S4BAG58$uedata=s:%2Frd%2Fuedata%3Fstaticb%26id%3DTK7MYTC3EJM90S4BAG58:0",
"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYjBiOTYxZWItMzdiZi00NjlkLWIzZTYtYmFhZjhiMTljOTdkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzkwMjQ5NzM@._V1_UX67_CR0,0,67,98_AL_.jpg",
"... | [] | [] | [
"Reviews",
"Showtimes",
"DVDs",
"Photos",
"User Ratings",
"Synopsis",
"Trailers",
"Credits"
] | null | [] | null | Citizen Kane (1941) on IMDb: Movies, TV, Celebs, and more... | IMDb | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/reviews/ | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 0 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | en | Citizen Kane | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/1... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2001-08-31T17:53:47+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | 1941 drama film by Orson Welles
For the hip hop duo, see Citizen Kane (band).
Citizen KaneDirected byOrson WellesScreenplay by
Herman J. Mankiewicz
Orson Welles
Produced byOrson WellesStarringCinematographyGregg TolandEdited byRobert WiseMusic byBernard Herrmann
Production
companies
Distributed byRKO Radio Pictures
Release dates
Running time
119 minutes[1]CountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishBudget$839,727[2]Box office$1.8 million (re-release)[3][4]
Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama film directed by, produced by, and starring Orson Welles. Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz wrote the screenplay. The picture was Welles's first feature film.
Citizen Kane is frequently cited as the greatest film ever made.[5] For 40 years (5 decennial polls: 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002), it stood at number 1 in the British Film Institute's Sight & Sound decennial poll of critics,[6] and it topped the American Film Institute's 100 Years ... 100 Movies list in 1998, as well as its 2007 update. The film was nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories and it won for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) by Mankiewicz and Welles. Citizen Kane is praised for Gregg Toland's cinematography, Robert Wise's editing, Bernard Herrmann's music, and its narrative structure, all of which have been considered innovative and precedent-setting.
The quasi-biographical film examines the life and legacy of Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles, a composite character based on American media barons William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, Chicago tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick, as well as aspects of the screenwriters' own lives. Upon its release, Hearst prohibited any mention of the film in his newspapers.[7]
After the Broadway success of Welles's Mercury Theatre and the controversial 1938 radio broadcast "The War of the Worlds" on The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was courted by Hollywood. He signed a contract with RKO Pictures in 1939. Although it was unusual for an untried director, he was given freedom to develop his own story, to use his own cast and crew, and to have final cut privilege. Following two abortive attempts to get a project off the ground, he wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane, collaborating with Herman J. Mankiewicz. Principal photography took place in 1940, the same year its innovative trailer was shown, and the film was released in 1941.
Although it was a critical success, Citizen Kane failed to recoup its costs at the box office. The film faded from view after its release, but it returned to public attention when it was praised by French critics such as André Bazin and re-released in 1956. In 1958, the film was voted number 9 on the prestigious Brussels 12 list at the 1958 World Expo. Citizen Kane was selected by the Library of Congress as an inductee of the 1989 inaugural group of 25 films for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[8][9][10] Roger Ebert wrote of it: "Its surface is as much fun as any movie ever made. Its depths surpass understanding. I have analyzed it a shot at a time with more than 30 groups, and together we have seen, I believe, pretty much everything that is there on the screen. The more clearly I can see its physical manifestation, the more I am stirred by its mystery."[11]
Plot
[edit]
In a mansion called Xanadu, part of a vast palatial estate in Florida, the elderly Charles Foster Kane is on his deathbed. Holding a snow globe, he utters his last word, "Rosebud", and dies. A newsreel obituary tells the life story of Kane, an enormously wealthy newspaper publisher and industry magnate. Kane's death becomes sensational news around the world, and the newsreel's producer tasks reporter Jerry Thompson with discovering the meaning of "Rosebud".
Thompson sets out to interview Kane's friends and associates. He tries to approach Kane's second wife, Susan Alexander Kane, now an alcoholic who runs her own nightclub, but she refuses to talk to him. Thompson goes to the private archive of the late banker Walter Parks Thatcher. Through Thatcher's written memoirs, Thompson learns about Kane's rise from a Colorado boarding house and the decline of his fortune.
In 1871, gold was discovered through a mining deed belonging to Kane's mother, Mary Kane. She hired Thatcher to establish a trust that would provide for Kane's education and assume guardianship of him. While the parents and Thatcher discussed arrangements inside the boarding house, the young Kane played happily with a sled in the snow outside. When Kane's parents introduced him to Thatcher, the boy struck Thatcher with his sled and attempted to run away.
By the time Kane gained control of his trust at the age of 25, the mine's productivity and Thatcher's prudent investing had made Kane one of the richest men in the world. Kane took control of the New York Inquirer newspaper and embarked on a career of yellow journalism, publishing scandalous articles that attacked Thatcher's (and his own) business interests. Kane sold his newspaper empire to Thatcher after the 1929 stock market crash left him short of cash.
Thompson interviews Kane's personal business manager, Mr. Bernstein. Bernstein recalls that Kane hired the best journalists available to build the Inquirer's circulation. Kane rose to power by successfully manipulating public opinion regarding the Spanish–American War and marrying Emily Norton, the niece of the President of the United States.
Thompson interviews Kane's estranged best friend, Jedediah Leland, in a retirement home. Leland says that Kane's marriage to Emily disintegrated over the years, and he began an affair with amateur singer Susan Alexander while running for Governor of New York. Both his wife and his political opponent discovered the affair, and the public scandal ended his political career. Kane married Susan and forced her into a humiliating career as an opera singer (for which she had neither the talent nor the ambition). Kane arranged for a large opera house to be built in Chicago for Susan to perform in. After Leland began to write a negative review of Susan's disastrous opera debut, Kane fired him but finished the negative review and printed it. Susan protested that she never wanted the opera career anyway, but Kane forced her to continue the season.
Susan consents to an interview with Thompson and describes the aftermath of her opera career. She attempted suicide, and Kane finally allowed her to abandon singing. After many unhappy years living at Xanadu with Kane, the two had an argument that culminated in Kane slapping Susan. Susan decided to leave Kane. Kane's butler Raymond recounts that, after Susan moved out of Xanadu, Kane began violently destroying the contents of her former bedroom. When Kane discovered a snow globe, he calmed down and tearfully said "Rosebud". Thompson concludes that he cannot solve the mystery and that the meaning of Kane's last word will remain unknown.
At Xanadu, Kane's belongings are cataloged or discarded by the mansion's staff. They find a sled, the one on which eight-year-old Kane was playing on the day that he was taken from his home in Colorado, and throw it into a furnace with other items. Unknown to the staff, the sled's trade name, printed on top, becomes visible through the flames: "Rosebud".
Cast
[edit]
The beginning of the film's ending credits states that "Most of the principal actors in Citizen Kane are new to motion pictures. The Mercury Theatre is proud to introduce them."[12] The cast is then listed in the following order, with Orson Welles' credit for playing Charles Foster Kane appearing last:[12]
Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland, Kane's best friend and a reporter for The Inquirer. Cotten also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane, Kane's mistress and second wife.[13]
Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane, Kane's mother.[13]
Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane, Kane's first wife.[13]
Ray Collins as Jim W. Gettys, Kane's political rival for the post of Governor of New York.[13]
Erskine Sanford as Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer. Sanford also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein, Kane's friend and employee at The Inquirer.[13]
William Alland as Jerry Thompson, a reporter for News on the March. Alland also voices the narrator of the News on the March newsreel.[13]
Paul Stewart as Raymond, Kane's butler.[13]
George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker who becomes Kane's legal guardian.[13]
Fortunio Bonanova as Signor Matiste, vocal coach of Susan Alexander Kane.[13]
Gus Schilling as John, headwaiter at the El Rancho nightclub. Schilling also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Philip Van Zandt as Mr. Rawlston, News on the March open at the producer.[13]
Georgia Backus as Bertha Anderson, attendant at the library of Walter Parks Thatcher.[13]
Harry Shannon as Jim Kane, Kane's father.[13]
Sonny Bupp as Charles Foster Kane III, Kane's son.[13]
Buddy Swan as Charles Foster Kane, age eight.[13]
Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper publisher.[13]
Additionally, Charles Bennett appears as the entertainer at the head of the chorus line in the Inquirer party sequence,[14]: 40–41 and cinematographer Gregg Toland makes a cameo appearance as an interviewer depicted in part of the News on the March newsreel.[15][16] Actor Alan Ladd, still unknown at that time, makes a small appearance as a reporter smoking a pipe at the end of the film.[17]
Production
[edit]
Development
[edit]
Hollywood had shown interest in Welles as early as 1936.[18]: 40 He turned down three scripts sent to him by Warner Bros. In 1937, he declined offers from David O. Selznick, who asked him to head his film company's story department, and William Wyler, who wanted him for a supporting role in Wuthering Heights. "Although the possibility of making huge amounts of money in Hollywood greatly attracted him," wrote biographer Frank Brady, "he was still totally, hopelessly, insanely in love with the theater, and it is there that he had every intention of remaining to make his mark."[19]: 118–119, 130
Following the 1938 "The War of the Worlds" broadcast of his CBS radio series The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was lured to Hollywood with a remarkable contract.[20]: 1–2, 153 RKO Pictures studio head George J. Schaefer wanted to work with Welles after the notorious broadcast, believing that Welles had a gift for attracting mass attention.[21]: 170 RKO was also uncharacteristically profitable and was entering into a series of independent production contracts that would add more artistically prestigious films to its roster.[20]: 1–2, 153 Throughout the spring and early summer of 1939, Schaefer constantly tried to lure the reluctant Welles to Hollywood.[21]: 170 Welles was in financial trouble after failure of his plays Five Kings and The Green Goddess. At first he simply wanted to spend three months in Hollywood and earn enough money to pay his debts and fund his next theatrical season.[21]: 170 Welles first arrived on July 20, 1939,[21]: 168 and on his first tour, he called the movie studio "the greatest electric train set a boy ever had".[21]: 174
Welles signed his contract with RKO on August 21, which stipulated that Welles would act in, direct, produce and write two films. Mercury would get $100,000 for the first film by January 1, 1940, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000, and $125,000 for a second film by January 1, 1941, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000. The most controversial aspect of the contract was granting Welles complete artistic control of the two films so long as RKO approved both projects' stories[21]: 169 and so long as the budget did not exceed $500,000.[20]: 1–2, 153 RKO executives would not be allowed to see any footage until Welles chose to show it to them, and no cuts could be made to either film without Welles's approval.[21]: 169 Welles was allowed to develop the story without interference, select his own cast and crew, and have the right of final cut. Granting the final cut privilege was unprecedented for a studio because it placed artistic considerations over financial investment. The contract was deeply resented in the film industry, and the Hollywood press took every opportunity to mock RKO and Welles. Schaefer remained a great supporter[20]: 1–2, 153 and saw the unprecedented contract as good publicity.[21]: 170 Film scholar Robert L. Carringer wrote: "The simple fact seems to be that Schaefer believed Welles was going to pull off something really big almost as much as Welles did himself."[20]: 1–2, 153
Welles spent the first five months of his RKO contract trying to get his first project going, without success. "They are laying bets over on the RKO lot that the Orson Welles deal will end up without Orson ever doing a picture there," wrote The Hollywood Reporter.[20]: 15 It was agreed that Welles would film Heart of Darkness, previously adapted for The Mercury Theatre on the Air, which would be presented entirely through a first-person camera. After elaborate pre-production and a day of test shooting with a hand-held camera—unheard of at the time—the project never reached production because Welles was unable to trim $50,000 from its budget.[a][b][22]: 30–31 Schaefer told Welles that the $500,000 budget could not be exceeded; as war loomed, revenue was declining sharply in Europe by the fall of 1939.[19]: 215–216
He then started work on the idea that became Citizen Kane. Knowing the script would take time to prepare, Welles suggested to RKO that while that was being done—"so the year wouldn't be lost"—he make a humorous political thriller. Welles proposed The Smiler with a Knife, from a novel by Cecil Day-Lewis.[22]: 33–34 When that project stalled in December 1939, Welles began brainstorming other story ideas with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who had been writing Mercury radio scripts. "Arguing, inventing, discarding, these two powerful, headstrong, dazzlingly articulate personalities thrashed toward Kane", wrote biographer Richard Meryman.[23]: 245–246
Screenplay
[edit]
Main article: Screenplay for Citizen Kane
One of the long-standing controversies about Citizen Kane has been the authorship of the screenplay.[23]: 237 Welles conceived the project with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who was writing radio plays for Welles's CBS Radio series, The Campbell Playhouse.[20]: 16 Mankiewicz based the original outline on the life of William Randolph Hearst, whom he knew socially and came to hate after being exiled from Hearst's circle.[23]: 231
In February 1940 Welles supplied Mankiewicz with 300 pages of notes and put him under contract to write the first draft screenplay under the supervision of John Houseman, Welles's former partner in the Mercury Theatre. Welles later explained, "I left him on his own finally, because we'd started to waste too much time haggling. So, after mutual agreements on storyline and character, Mank went off with Houseman and did his version, while I stayed in Hollywood and wrote mine."[22]: 54 Taking these drafts, Welles drastically condensed and rearranged them, then added scenes of his own. The industry accused Welles of underplaying Mankiewicz's contribution to the script, but Welles countered the attacks by saying, "At the end, naturally, I was the one making the picture, after all—who had to make the decisions. I used what I wanted of Mank's and, rightly or wrongly, kept what I liked of my own."[22]: 54
The terms of the contract stated that Mankiewicz was to receive no credit for his work, as he was hired as a script doctor.[24]: 487 Before he signed the contract Mankiewicz was particularly advised by his agents that all credit for his work belonged to Welles and the Mercury Theatre, the "author and creator".[19]: 236–237 As the film neared release, however, Mankiewicz began wanting a writing credit for the film and even threatened to take out full-page advertisements in trade papers and to get his friend Ben Hecht to write an exposé for The Saturday Evening Post.[25] Mankiewicz also threatened to go to the Screen Writers Guild and claim full credit for writing the entire script by himself.[21]: 204
After lodging a protest with the Screen Writers Guild, Mankiewicz withdrew it, then vacillated. The question was resolved in January 1941 when the studio, RKO Pictures, awarded Mankiewicz credit. The guild credit form listed Welles first, Mankiewicz second. Welles's assistant Richard Wilson said that the person who circled Mankiewicz's name in pencil, then drew an arrow that put it in first place, was Welles. The official credit reads, "Screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles".[23]: 264–265 Mankiewicz's rancor toward Welles grew over the remaining twelve years of his life.[26]: 498
Questions over the authorship of the Citizen Kane screenplay were revived in 1971 by influential film critic Pauline Kael, whose controversial 50,000-word essay "Raising Kane" was commissioned as an introduction to the shooting script in The Citizen Kane Book,[22]: 494 published in October 1971.[27] The book-length essay first appeared in February 1971, in two consecutive issues of The New Yorker magazine.[22]: 494 [28] In the ensuing controversy, Welles was defended by colleagues, critics, biographers and scholars, but his reputation was damaged by its charges.[26]: 394 The essay's thesis was later questioned and some of Kael's findings were also contested in later years.[29][30][31]
Questions of authorship continued to come into sharper focus with Carringer's 1978 thoroughly researched essay, "The Scripts of Citizen Kane".[32][c] Carringer studied the collection of script records—"almost a day-to-day record of the history of the scripting"—that was then still intact at RKO. He reviewed all seven drafts and concluded that "the full evidence reveals that Welles's contribution to the Citizen Kane script was not only substantial but definitive."[32]: 80
Casting
[edit]
Citizen Kane was a rare film in that its principal roles were played by actors new to motion pictures. Ten were billed as Mercury Actors, members of the skilled repertory company assembled by Welles for the stage and radio performances of the Mercury Theatre, an independent theater company he founded with Houseman in 1937.[19]: 119–120 [34] "He loved to use the Mercury players," wrote biographer Charles Higham, "and consequently he launched several of them on movie careers."[35]: 155
The film represents the feature film debuts of William Alland, Ray Collins, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane, Paul Stewart, and Welles himself.[13] Despite never having appeared in feature films, some of the cast members were already well known to the public. Cotten had recently become a Broadway star in the hit play The Philadelphia Story with Katharine Hepburn[21]: 187 and Sloane was well known for his role on the radio show The Goldbergs.[21]: 187 [d] Mercury actor George Coulouris was a star of the stage in New York and London.[34]
Not all of the cast came from the Mercury Players. Welles cast Dorothy Comingore, an actress who played supporting parts in films since 1934 using the name "Linda Winters",[36] as Susan Alexander Kane. A discovery of Charlie Chaplin, Comingore was recommended to Welles by Chaplin,[37]: 170 who then met Comingore at a party in Los Angeles and immediately cast her.[38]: 44
Welles had met stage actress Ruth Warrick while visiting New York on a break from Hollywood and remembered her as a good fit for Emily Norton Kane,[21]: 188 later saying that she looked the part.[37]: 169 Warrick told Carringer that she was struck by the extraordinary resemblance between herself and Welles's mother when she saw a photograph of Beatrice Ives Welles. She characterized her own personal relationship with Welles as motherly.[39]: 14
"He trained us for films at the same time that he was training himself," recalled Agnes Moorehead. "Orson believed in good acting, and he realized that rehearsals were needed to get the most from his actors. That was something new in Hollywood: nobody seemed interested in bringing in a group to rehearse before scenes were shot. But Orson knew it was necessary, and we rehearsed every sequence before it was shot."[40]: 9
When The March of Time narrator Westbrook Van Voorhis asked for $25,000 to narrate the News on the March sequence, Alland demonstrated his ability to imitate Van Voorhis and Welles cast him.[41]
Welles later said that casting character actor Gino Corrado in the small part of the waiter at the El Rancho broke his heart. Corrado had appeared in many Hollywood films, often as a waiter, and Welles wanted all of the actors to be new to films.[37]: 171
Other uncredited roles went to Thomas A. Curran as Teddy Roosevelt in the faux newsreel; Richard Baer as Hillman, a man at Madison Square Garden, and a man in the News on the March screening room; and Alan Ladd, Arthur O'Connell and Louise Currie as reporters at Xanadu.[13]
Ruth Warrick (died 2005) was the last surviving member of the principal cast. Sonny Bupp (died 2007), who played Kane's young son, was the last surviving credited cast member.[42] Kathryn Trosper Popper (died March 6, 2016) was reported to have been the last surviving actor to have appeared in Citizen Kane.[43] Jean Forward (died September 2016), a soprano who dubbed the singing voice of Susan Alexander, was the last surviving performer from the film.[44]
Filming
[edit]
Production advisor Miriam Geiger quickly compiled a handmade film textbook for Welles, a practical reference book of film techniques that he studied carefully. He then taught himself filmmaking by matching its visual vocabulary to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which he ordered from the Museum of Modern Art,[21]: 173 and films by Frank Capra, René Clair, Fritz Lang, King Vidor[45]: 1172 : 1171 and Jean Renoir.[19]: 209 The one film he genuinely studied was John Ford's Stagecoach,[22]: 29 which he watched 40 times.[46] "As it turned out, the first day I ever walked onto a set was my first day as a director," Welles said. "I'd learned whatever I knew in the projection room—from Ford. After dinner every night for about a month, I'd run Stagecoach, often with some different technician or department head from the studio, and ask questions. 'How was this done?' 'Why was this done?' It was like going to school."[22]: 29
Welles's cinematographer for the film was Gregg Toland, described by Welles as "just then, the number-one cameraman in the world." To Welles's astonishment, Toland visited him at his office and said, "I want you to use me on your picture." He had seen some of the Mercury stage productions (including Caesar[26]: 66 ) and said he wanted to work with someone who had never made a movie.[22]: 59 RKO hired Toland on loan from Samuel Goldwyn Productions[47]: 10 in the first week of June 1940.[20]: 40
"And he never tried to impress us that he was doing any miracles," Welles recalled. "I was calling for things only a beginner would have been ignorant enough to think anybody could ever do, and there he was, doing them."[22]: 60 Toland later explained that he wanted to work with Welles because he anticipated the first-time director's inexperience and reputation for audacious experimentation in the theater would allow the cinematographer to try new and innovative camera techniques that typical Hollywood films would never have allowed him to do.[21]: 186 Unaware of filmmaking protocol, Welles adjusted the lights on set as he was accustomed to doing in the theater; Toland quietly re-balanced them, and was angry when one of the crew informed Welles that he was infringing on Toland's responsibilities.[48]: 5:33–6:06 During the first few weeks of June, Welles had lengthy discussions about the film with Toland and art director Perry Ferguson in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening he worked with actors and revised the script.[20]: 69
On June 29, 1940—a Saturday morning when few inquisitive studio executives would be around—Welles began filming Citizen Kane.[20]: 69 [26]: 107 After the disappointment of having Heart of Darkness canceled,[22]: 30–31 Welles followed Ferguson's suggestion[e][22]: 57 and deceived RKO into believing that he was simply shooting camera tests. "But we were shooting the picture," Welles said, "because we wanted to get started and be already into it before anybody knew about it."[22]: 57
At the time RKO executives were pressuring him to agree to direct a film called The Men from Mars, to capitalize on "The War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. Welles said that he would consider making the project but wanted to make a different film first. At this time he did not inform them that he had already begun filming Citizen Kane.[21]: 186
The early footage was called "Orson Welles Tests" on all paperwork.[20]: 69 The first "test" shot was the News on the March projection room scene, economically filmed in a real studio projection room in darkness that masked many actors who appeared in other roles later in the film.[20]: 69 [22]: 77–78 [f] "At $809 Orson did run substantially beyond the test budget of $528—to create one of the most famous scenes in movie history," wrote Barton Whaley.[26]: 107
The next scenes were the El Rancho nightclub scenes and the scene in which Susan attempts suicide.[g][20]: 69 Welles later said that the nightclub set was available after another film had wrapped and that filming took 10 to 12 days to complete. For these scenes Welles had Comingore's throat sprayed with chemicals to give her voice a harsh, raspy tone.[37]: 170–171 Other scenes shot in secret included those in which Thompson interviews Leland and Bernstein, which were also shot on sets built for other films.[41]
During production, the film was referred to as RKO 281. Most of the filming took place in what is now Stage 19 on the Paramount Pictures lot in Hollywood.[51] There was some location filming at Balboa Park in San Diego and the San Diego Zoo.[52] Photographs of German-Jewish investment banker Otto Hermann Kahn's real-life estate Oheka Castle were used to portray the fictional Xanadu.[53][54]
In the end of July, RKO approved the film and Welles was allowed to officially begin shooting, despite having already been filming "tests" for several weeks. Welles leaked stories to newspaper reporters that the "tests" had been so good that there was no need to re-shoot them. The first "official" scene to be shot was the breakfast montage sequence between Kane and his first wife Emily. To strategically save money and appease the RKO executives who opposed him, Welles rehearsed scenes extensively before actually shooting and filmed very few takes of each shot set-up.[21]: 193 Welles never shot master shots for any scene after Toland told him that Ford never shot them.[37]: 169 To appease the increasingly curious press, Welles threw a cocktail party for selected reporters, promising that they could watch a scene being filmed. When the journalists arrived Welles told them they had "just finished" shooting for the day but still had the party.[21]: 193 Welles told the press that he was ahead of schedule (without factoring in the month of "test shooting"), thus discrediting claims that after a year in Hollywood without making a film he was a failure in the film industry.[21]: 194
Welles usually worked 16 to 18 hours a day on the film. He often began work at 4 a.m. since the special effects make-up used to age him for certain scenes took up to four hours to apply. Welles used this time to discuss the day's shooting with Toland and other crew members. The special contact lenses used to make Welles look elderly proved very painful, and a doctor was employed to place them into Welles's eyes. Welles had difficulty seeing clearly while wearing them, which caused him to badly cut his wrist when shooting the scene in which Kane breaks up the furniture in Susan's bedroom. While shooting the scene in which Kane shouts at Gettys on the stairs of Susan Alexander's apartment building, Welles fell ten feet; an X-ray revealed two bone chips in his ankle.[21]: 194
The injury required him to direct the film from a wheelchair for two weeks.[55][21]: 194–195 He eventually wore a steel brace to resume performing on camera; it is visible in the low-angle scene between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election.[h][22]: 61 For the final scene, a stage at the Selznick studio was equipped with a working furnace, and multiple takes were required to show the sled being put into the fire and the word "Rosebud" consumed. Paul Stewart recalled that on the ninth take the Culver City Fire Department arrived in full gear because the furnace had grown so hot the flue caught fire. "Orson was delighted with the commotion", he said.[40]: 8–9 [56]
When "Rosebud" was burned, Welles choreographed[clarification needed] the scene while he had composer Bernard Herrmann's cue playing on the set.[57]
Unlike Schaefer, many members of RKO's board of governors did not like Welles or the control that his contract gave him.[21]: 186 However such board members as Nelson Rockefeller and NBC chief David Sarnoff[45]: 1170 were sympathetic to Welles.[58] Throughout production Welles had problems with these executives not respecting his contract's stipulation of non-interference and several spies arrived on set to report what they saw to the executives. When the executives would sometimes arrive on set unannounced the entire cast and crew would suddenly start playing softball until they left. Before official shooting began the executives intercepted all copies of the script and delayed their delivery to Welles. They had one copy sent to their office in New York, resulting in it being leaked to press.[21]: 195
Principal shooting wrapped October 24. Welles then took several weeks away from the film for a lecture tour, during which he also scouted additional locations with Toland and Ferguson. Filming resumed November 15[20]: 87 with some re-shoots. Toland had to leave due to a commitment to shoot Howard Hughes' The Outlaw, but Toland's camera crew continued working on the film and Toland was replaced by RKO cinematographer Harry J. Wild. The final day of shooting on November 30 was Kane's death scene.[20]: 85 Welles boasted that he only went 21 days over his official shooting schedule, without factoring in the month of "camera tests".[21]: 195 According to RKO records, the film cost $839,727. Its estimated budget had been $723,800.[13]
Post-production
[edit]
Citizen Kane was edited by Robert Wise and assistant editor Mark Robson.[47]: 85 Both would become successful film directors. Wise was hired after Welles finished shooting the "camera tests" and began officially making the film. Wise said that Welles "had an older editor assigned to him for those tests and evidently he was not too happy and asked to have somebody else. I was roughly Orson's age and had several good credits." Wise and Robson began editing the film while it was still shooting and said that they "could tell certainly that we were getting something very special. It was outstanding film day in and day out."[45]: 1210
Welles gave Wise detailed instructions and was usually not present during the film's editing.[20]: 109 The film was very well planned out and intentionally shot for such post-production techniques as slow dissolves.[41] The lack of coverage made editing easy since Welles and Toland edited the film "in camera" by leaving few options of how it could be put together.[20]: 110 Wise said the breakfast table sequence took weeks to edit and get the correct "timing" and "rhythm" for the whip pans and overlapping dialogue.[41] The News on the March sequence was edited by RKO's newsreel division to give it authenticity.[20]: 110 They used stock footage from Pathé News and the General Film Library.[13]
During post-production Welles and special effects artist Linwood G. Dunn experimented with an optical printer to improve certain scenes that Welles found unsatisfactory from the footage.[41] Whereas Welles was often immediately pleased with Wise's work, he would require Dunn and post-production audio engineer James G. Stewart to re-do their work several times until he was satisfied.[20]: 109
Welles hired Bernard Herrmann to compose the film's score. Where most Hollywood film scores were written quickly, in as few as two or three weeks after filming was completed, Herrmann was given 12 weeks to write the music. He had sufficient time to do his own orchestrations and conducting, and worked on the film reel by reel as it was shot and cut. He wrote complete musical pieces for some of the montages, and Welles edited many of the scenes to match their length.[59]
Style
[edit]
Film scholars and historians view Citizen Kane as Welles's attempt to create a new style of filmmaking by studying various forms of it and combining them into one. However, Welles stated that his love for cinema began only when he started working on the film. When asked where he got the confidence as a first-time director to direct a film so radically different from contemporary cinema, he responded, "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance—you know there's no confidence to equal it. It's only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you're timid or careful."[60]: 80
David Bordwell wrote that "The best way to understand Citizen Kane is to stop worshipping it as a triumph of technique." Bordwell argues that the film did not invent any of its famous techniques such as deep focus cinematography, shots of the ceilings, chiaroscuro lighting and temporal jump-cuts, and that many of these stylistics had been used in German Expressionist films of the 1920s, such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. But Bordwell asserts that the film did put them all together for the first time and perfected the medium in one single film.[45]: 1171 In a 1948 interview, D. W. Griffith said, "I loved Citizen Kane and particularly loved the ideas he took from me."[61]
Arguments against the film's cinematic innovations were made as early as 1946 when French historian Georges Sadoul wrote, "The film is an encyclopedia of old techniques." He pointed out such examples as compositions that used both the foreground and the background in the films of Auguste and Louis Lumière, special effects used in the films of Georges Méliès, shots of the ceiling in Erich von Stroheim's Greed and newsreel montages in the films of Dziga Vertov.[62]
French film critic André Bazin defended the film, writing: "In this respect, the accusation of plagiarism could very well be extended to the film's use of panchromatic film or its exploitation of the properties of gelatinous silver halide." Bazin disagreed with Sadoul's comparison to Lumière's cinematography since Citizen Kane used more sophisticated lenses,[63]: 232 but acknowledged that it had similarities to such previous works as The 49th Parallel and The Power and the Glory. Bazin stated that "even if Welles did not invent the cinematic devices employed in Citizen Kane, one should nevertheless credit him with the invention of their meaning."[63]: 233 Bazin championed the techniques in the film for its depiction of heightened reality, but Bordwell believed that the film's use of special effects contradicted some of Bazin's theories.[64]: 75
Storytelling techniques
[edit]
Citizen Kane rejects the traditional linear, chronological narrative and tells Kane's story entirely in flashbacks using different points of view, many of them from Kane's aged and forgetful associates, the cinematic equivalent of the unreliable narrator in literature.[65]: 83 Welles also dispenses with the idea of a single storyteller and uses multiple narrators to recount Kane's life, a technique not used previously in Hollywood films.[65]: 81 Each narrator recounts a different part of Kane's life, with each story overlapping another.[66] The film depicts Kane as an enigma, a complicated man who leaves viewers with more questions than answers as to his character, such as the newsreel footage where he is attacked for being both a communist and a fascist.[65]: 82–84
The technique of flashbacks had been used in earlier films, notably The Power and the Glory (1933),[67] but no film was as immersed in it as Citizen Kane. Thompson the reporter acts as a surrogate for the audience, questioning Kane's associates and piecing together his life.[66]
Films typically had an "omniscient perspective" at the time, which Marilyn Fabe says give the audience the "illusion that we are looking with impunity into a world which is unaware of our gaze". Citizen Kane also begins in that fashion until the News on the March sequence, after which we the audience see the film through the perspectives of others.[65]: 81 The News on the March sequence gives an overview of Kane's entire life (and the film's entire story) at the beginning of the film, leaving the audience without the typical suspense of wondering how it will end. Instead, the film's repetitions of events compels the audience to analyze and wonder why Kane's life happened the way that it did, under the pretext of finding out what "Rosebud" means. The film then returns to the omniscient perspective in the final scene, when only the audience discovers what "Rosebud" is.[65]: 82–83
Cinematography
[edit]
The most innovative technical aspect of Citizen Kane is the extended use of deep focus,[68] where the foreground, background, and everything in between are all in sharp focus. Cinematographer Toland did this through his experimentation with lenses and lighting. Toland described the achievement in an article for Theatre Arts magazine, made possible by the sensitivity of modern speed film:
New developments in the science of motion picture photography are not abundant at this advanced stage of the game but periodically one is perfected to make this a greater art. Of these I am in an excellent position to discuss what is termed "Pan-focus", as I have been active for two years in its development and used it for the first time in Citizen Kane. Through its use, it is possible to photograph action from a range of eighteen inches from the camera lens to over two hundred feet away, with extreme foreground and background figures and action both recorded in sharp relief. Hitherto, the camera had to be focused either for a close or a distant shot, all efforts to encompass both at the same time resulting in one or the other being out of focus. This handicap necessitated the breaking up of a scene into long and short angles, with much consequent loss of realism. With pan-focus, the camera, like the human eye, sees an entire panorama at once, with everything clear and lifelike.[69]
Another unorthodox method used in the film was the low-angle shots facing upwards, thus allowing ceilings to be shown in the background of several scenes. Every set was built with a ceiling[69] which broke with studio convention, and many were constructed of fabric that concealed microphones.[70] Welles felt that the camera should show what the eye sees, and that it was a bad theatrical convention to pretend that there was no ceiling—"a big lie in order to get all those terrible lights up there," he said. He became fascinated with the look of low angles, which made even dull interiors look interesting. One extremely low angle is used to photograph the encounter between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election. A hole was dug for the camera, which required drilling into the concrete floor.[22]: 61–62
Welles credited Toland on the same title card as himself. "It's impossible to say how much I owe to Gregg," he said. "He was superb."[22]: 59 [71] He called Toland "the best director of photography that ever existed."[72]
Sound
[edit]
Citizen Kane's sound was recorded by Bailey Fesler and re-recorded in post-production by audio engineer James G. Stewart,[47]: 85 both of whom had worked in radio.[20]: 102 Stewart said that Hollywood films never deviated from a basic pattern of how sound could be recorded or used, but with Welles "deviation from the pattern was possible because he demanded it."[41] Although the film is known for its complex soundtrack, much of the audio is heard as it was recorded by Fesler and without manipulation.[20]: 102
Welles used techniques from radio like overlapping dialogue. The scene in which characters sing "Oh, Mr. Kane" was especially complicated and required mixing several soundtracks together.[20]: 104 He also used different "sound perspectives" to create the illusion of distances,[20]: 101 such as in scenes at Xanadu where characters speak to each other at far distances.[41] Welles experimented with sound in post-production, creating audio montages,[73]: 94 and chose to create all of the sound effects for the film instead of using RKO's library of sound effects.[20]: 100
Welles used an aural technique from radio called the "lightning-mix". Welles used this technique to link complex montage sequences via a series of related sounds or phrases. For example, Kane grows from a child into a young man in just two shots. As Thatcher hands eight-year-old Kane a sled and wishes him a Merry Christmas, the sequence suddenly jumps to a shot of Thatcher fifteen years later, completing the sentence he began in both the previous shot and the chronological past. Other radio techniques include using a number of voices, each saying a sentence or sometimes merely a fragment of a sentence, and splicing the dialogue together in quick succession, such as the projection room scene.[74]: 413–412 The film's sound cost $16,996, but was originally budgeted at $7,288.[20]: 105
Film critic and director François Truffaut wrote that "Before Kane, nobody in Hollywood knew how to set music properly in movies. Kane was the first, in fact the only, great film that uses radio techniques. ... A lot of filmmakers know enough to follow Auguste Renoir's advice to fill the eyes with images at all costs, but only Orson Welles understood that the sound track had to be filled in the same way."[75] Cedric Belfrage of The Clipper wrote "of all of the delectable flavours that linger on the palate after seeing Kane, the use of sound is the strongest."[45]: 1171
Make-up
[edit]
The make-up for Citizen Kane was created and applied by Maurice Seiderman (1907–1989), a junior member of the RKO make-up department.[76]: 19 He had not been accepted into the union, which recognized him as only an apprentice, but RKO nevertheless used him to make up principal actors.[76]: 19 "Apprentices were not supposed to make up any principals, only extras, and an apprentice could not be on a set without a journeyman present," wrote make-up artist Dick Smith, who became friends with Seiderman in 1979. "During his years at RKO I suspect these rules were probably overlooked often."[76]: 19 "Seiderman had gained a reputation as one of the most inventive and creatively precise up-and-coming makeup men in Hollywood," wrote biographer Frank Brady.[19]: 253
On an early tour of RKO, Welles met Seiderman in the small make-up lab that he created for himself in an unused dressing room.[76]: 19 "Welles fastened on to him at once," wrote biographer Charles Higham, as Seiderman had developed his own makeup methods "that ensured complete naturalness of expression—a naturalness unrivaled in Hollywood."[35]: 157 Seiderman developed a thorough plan for aging the principal characters, first making a plaster cast of the face of each of the actors who aged. He made a plaster mold of Welles's body down to the hips.[77]: 46
"My sculptural techniques for the characters' aging were handled by adding pieces of white modeling clay, which matched the plaster, onto the surface of each bust," Seiderman told Norman Gambill. When Seiderman achieved the desired effect, he cast the clay pieces in a soft plastic material[77]: 46 that he formulated himself.[76]: 20 These appliances were then placed onto the plaster bust and a four-piece mold was made for each phase of aging. The castings were then fully painted and paired with the appropriate wig for evaluation.[77]: 46–47
Before the actors went before the cameras each day, the pliable pieces were applied directly to their faces to recreate Seiderman's sculptural image. The facial surface was underpainted in a flexible red plastic compound;[77]: 43 The red ground resulted in a warmth of tone that was picked up by the panchromatic film. Over that was applied liquid grease paint, and finally a colorless translucent talcum.[77]: 42–43 Seiderman created the effect of skin pores on Kane's face by stippling the surface with a negative cast made from an orange peel.[77]: 42, 47
Welles often arrived on the set at 2:30 am,[22]: 69 as application of the sculptural make-up took 3½ hours for the oldest incarnation of Kane. The make-up included appliances to age Welles's shoulders, breast, and stomach.[76]: 19–20 "In the film and production photographs, you can see that Kane had a belly that overhung," Seiderman said. "That was not a costume, it was the rubber sculpture that created the image. You could see how Kane's silk shirt clung wetly to the character's body. It could not have been done any other way."[77]: 46
Seiderman worked with Charles Wright on the wigs. These went over a flexible skull cover that Seiderman created and sewed into place with elastic thread. When he found the wigs too full, he untied one hair at a time to alter their shape. Kane's mustache was inserted into the makeup surface a few hairs at a time, to realistically vary the color and texture.[77]: 43, 47 He also made scleral lenses for Welles, Dorothy Comingore, George Coulouris, and Everett Sloane to dull the brightness of their young eyes. The lenses took a long time to fit properly, and Seiderman began work on them before devising any of the other makeup. "I painted them to age in phases, ending with the blood vessels and the arcus senilis of old age."[77]: 47 Seiderman's tour de force was the breakfast montage, shot all in one day. "Twelve years, two years shot at each scene," he said.[77]: 47
The major studios gave screen credit for make-up only to the department head. When RKO make-up department head Mel Berns refused to share credit with Seiderman, who was only an apprentice, Welles told Berns that there would be no make-up credit. Welles signed a large advertisement in the Los Angeles newspaper:[76]: 22 [77]: 48
THANKS TO EVERYBODY WHO GETS SCREEN CREDIT FOR "CITIZEN KANE"
AND THANKS TO THOSE WHO DON'T
TO ALL THE ACTORS, THE CREW, THE OFFICE, THE MUSICIANS, EVERYBODY
AND PARTICULARLY TO MAURICE SEIDERMAN, THE BEST MAKE-UP MAN IN THE WORLD[76]: 20
Sets
[edit]
Although credited as an assistant, the film's art direction was done by Perry Ferguson.[47]: 85 Welles and Ferguson got along during their collaboration.[20]: 37 In the weeks before production began Welles, Toland and Ferguson met regularly to discuss the film and plan every shot, set design and prop. Ferguson would take notes during these discussions and create rough designs of the sets and story boards for individual shots. After Welles approved the rough sketches, Ferguson made miniature models for Welles and Toland to experiment on with a periscope in order to rehearse and perfect each shot. Ferguson then had detailed drawings made for the set design, including the film's lighting design. The set design was an integral part of the film's overall look and Toland's cinematography.[20]: 42
In the original script the Great Hall at Xanadu was modeled after the Great Hall in Hearst Castle and its design included a mixture of Renaissance and Gothic styles.[20]: 50–51 "The Hearstian element is brought out in the almost perverse juxtaposition of incongruous architectural styles and motifs," wrote Carringer.[20]: 54 Before RKO cut the film's budget, Ferguson's designs were more elaborate and resembled the production designs of early Cecil B. DeMille films and Intolerance.[20]: 55 The budget cuts reduced Ferguson's budget by 33 percent and his work cost $58,775 total,[20]: 65 which was below average at that time.[73]: 93
To save costs Ferguson and Welles re-wrote scenes in Xanadu's living room and transported them to the Great Hall. A large staircase from another film was found and used at no additional cost.[20]: 56–57 When asked about the limited budget, Ferguson said "Very often—as in that much-discussed 'Xanadu' set in Citizen Kane—we can make a foreground piece, a background piece, and imaginative lighting suggests a great deal more on the screen than actually exists on the stage."[20]: 65–66 According to the film's official budget there were 81 sets built, but Ferguson said there were between 106 and 116.[20]: 64
Still photographs of Oheka Castle in Huntington, New York, were used in the opening montage, representing Kane's Xanadu estate.[78][79] Ferguson also designed statues from Kane's collection with styles ranging from Greek to German Gothic.[20]: 61 The sets were also built to accommodate Toland's camera movements. Walls were built to fold and furniture could quickly be moved. The film's famous ceilings were made out of muslin fabric and camera boxes were built into the floors for low angle shots.[20]: 64–65 Welles later said that he was proud that the film production value looked much more expensive than the film's budget. Although neither worked with Welles again, Toland and Ferguson collaborated in several films in the 1940s.[20]: 65
Special effects
[edit]
The film's special effects were supervised by RKO department head Vernon L. Walker.[47]: 85 Welles pioneered several visual effects to cheaply shoot things like crowd scenes and large interior spaces. For example, the scene in which the camera in the opera house rises dramatically to the rafters, to show the workmen showing a lack of appreciation for Susan Alexander Kane's performance, was shot by a camera craning upwards over the performance scene, then a curtain wipe to a miniature of the upper regions of the house, and then another curtain wipe matching it again with the scene of the workmen. Other scenes effectively employed miniatures to make the film look much more expensive than it truly was, such as various shots of Xanadu.[80]
Some shots included rear screen projection in the background, such as Thompson's interview of Leland and some of the ocean backgrounds at Xanadu.[20]: 88 Bordwell claims that the scene where Thatcher agrees to be Kane's guardian used rear screen projection to depict young Kane in the background, despite this scene being cited as a prime example of Toland's deep focus cinematography.[64]: 74 A special effects camera crew from Walker's department was required for the extreme close-up shots such as Kane's lips when he says "Rosebud" and the shot of the typewriter typing Susan's bad review.[20]: 88
Optical effects artist Dunn claimed that "up to 80 percent of some reels was optically printed." These shots were traditionally attributed to Toland for years.[81]: 110 The optical printer improved some of the deep focus shots.[20]: 92 One problem with the optical printer was that it sometimes created excessive graininess, such as the optical zoom out of the snow globe. Welles decided to superimpose snow falling to mask the graininess in these shots.[20]: 94 Toland said that he disliked the results of the optical printer,[20]: 92 but acknowledged that "RKO special effects expert Vernon Walker, ASC, and his staff handled their part of the production—a by no means inconsiderable assignment—with ability and fine understanding."[64]: 74–75
Any time deep focus was impossible—as in the scene in which Kane finishes a negative review of Susan's opera while at the same time firing the person who began writing the review—an optical printer was used to make the whole screen appear in focus, visually layering one piece of film onto another.[20]: 92 However, some apparently deep-focus shots were the result of in-camera effects, as in the famous scene in which Kane breaks into Susan's room after her suicide attempt. In the background, Kane and another man break into the room, while simultaneously the medicine bottle and a glass with a spoon in it are in closeup in the foreground. The shot was an in-camera matte shot. The foreground was shot first, with the background dark. Then the background was lit, the foreground darkened, the film rewound, and the scene re-shot with the background action.[20]: 82
Music
[edit]
The film's music was composed by Bernard Herrmann.[82]: 72 Herrmann had composed for Welles for his Mercury Theatre radio broadcasts.[82]: 63 Because it was Herrmann's first motion picture score, RKO wanted to pay him only a small fee, but Welles insisted he be paid at the same rate as Max Steiner.[82]: 72
The score established Herrmann as an important new composer of film soundtracks[83] and eschewed the typical Hollywood practice of scoring a film with virtually non-stop music. Instead Herrmann used what he later described as "radio scoring", musical cues typically 5–15 seconds in length that bridge the action or suggest a different emotional response.[82]: 77–78 The breakfast montage sequence begins with a graceful waltz theme and gets darker with each variation on that theme as the passage of time leads to the hardening of Kane's personality and the breakdown of his first marriage.[84][85]
Herrmann realized that musicians slated to play his music were hired for individual unique sessions; there was no need to write for existing ensembles. This meant that he was free to score for unusual combinations of instruments, even instruments that are not commonly heard. In the opening sequence, for example, the tour of Kane's estate Xanadu, Herrmann introduces a recurring leitmotif played by low woodwinds, including a quartet of alto flutes.[86]
For Susan Alexander Kane's operatic sequence, Welles suggested that Herrmann compose a witty parody of a Mary Garden vehicle, an aria from Salammbô.[22]: 57 "Our problem was to create something that would give the audience the feeling of the quicksand into which this simple little girl, having a charming but small voice, is suddenly thrown," Herrmann said.[82]: 79 Writing in the style of a 19th-century French Oriental opera,[59] Herrmann put the aria in a key that would force the singer to strain to reach the high notes, culminating in a high D, well outside the range of Susan Alexander.[82]: 79–80 Soprano Jean Forward dubbed the vocal part for Comingore.[83] Houseman claimed to have written the libretto, based on Jean Racine's Athalie and Phedre,[87]: 460–461 although some confusion remains since Lucille Fletcher remembered preparing the lyrics.[82]: 80 Fletcher, then Herrmann's wife, wrote the libretto for his opera Wuthering Heights.[82]: 11
Music enthusiasts consider the scene in which Susan Alexander Kane attempts to sing the famous cavatina "Una voce poco fa" from Il barbiere di Siviglia by Gioachino Rossini with vocal coach Signor Matiste as especially memorable for depicting the horrors of learning music through mistakes.[88]
In 1972, Herrmann said, "I was fortunate to start my career with a film like Citizen Kane, it's been a downhill run ever since!" Welles loved Herrmann's score and told director Henry Jaglom that it was 50 percent responsible for the film's artistic success.[82]: 84
Some incidental music came from other sources. Welles heard the tune used for the publisher's theme, "Oh, Mr. Kane", in Mexico.[22]: 57 Called "A Poco No", the song was written by Pepe Guízar and special lyrics were written by Herman Ruby.[89]
"In a Mizz", a 1939 jazz song by Charlie Barnet and Haven Johnson, bookends Thompson's second interview of Susan Alexander Kane.[20]: 108 [89] "I kind of based the whole scene around that song," Welles said. "The music is by Nat Cole—it's his trio."[22]: 56 Later—beginning with the lyrics, "It can't be love"—"In a Mizz" is performed at the Everglades picnic, framing the fight in the tent between Susan and Kane.[20]: 108 Musicians including bandleader Cee Pee Johnson (drums), Alton Redd (vocals), Raymond Tate (trumpet), Buddy Collette (alto sax) and Buddy Banks (tenor sax) are featured.[90]
All of the music used in the newsreel came from the RKO music library, edited at Welles's request by the newsreel department to achieve what Herrmann called "their own crazy way of cutting". The News on the March theme that accompanies the newsreel titles is "Belgian March" by Anthony Collins, from the film Nurse Edith Cavell. Other examples are an excerpt from Alfred Newman's score for Gunga Din (the exploration of Xanadu), Roy Webb's theme for the film Reno (the growth of Kane's empire), and bits of Webb's score for Five Came Back (introducing Walter Parks Thatcher).[82]: 79 [89]
Editing
[edit]
One of the editing techniques used in Citizen Kane was the use of montage to collapse time and space, using an episodic sequence on the same set while the characters changed costume and make-up between cuts so that the scene following each cut would look as if it took place in the same location, but at a time long after the previous cut. In the breakfast montage, Welles chronicles the breakdown of Kane's first marriage in five vignettes that condense 16 years of story time into two minutes of screen time.[91] Welles said that the idea for the breakfast scene "was stolen from The Long Christmas Dinner by Thornton Wilder ... a one-act play, which is a long Christmas dinner that takes you through something like 60 years of a family's life."[22]: 51 The film often uses long dissolves to signify the passage of time and its psychological effect of the characters, such as the scene in which the abandoned sled is covered with snow after the young Kane is sent away with Thatcher.[65]: 90–91
Welles was influenced by the editing theories of Sergei Eisenstein by using jarring cuts that caused "sudden graphic or associative contrasts", such as the cut from Kane's deathbed to the beginning of the News on the March sequence and a sudden shot of a shrieking cockatoo at the beginning of Raymond's flashback.[65]: 88–89 Although the film typically favors mise-en-scène over montage, the scene in which Kane goes to Susan Alexander's apartment after first meeting her is the only one that is primarily cut as close-ups with shots and counter shots between Kane and Susan.[47]: 68 Fabe says that "by using a standard Hollywood technique sparingly, [Welles] revitalizes its psychological expressiveness."[65]: 88
Sources
[edit]
Main article: Sources for Citizen Kane
Welles never confirmed a principal source for the character of Charles Foster Kane. Houseman wrote that Kane is a synthesis of different personalities, with Hearst's life used as the main source. Some events and details were invented,[87]: 444 and Houseman wrote that he and Mankiewicz also "grafted anecdotes from other giants of journalism, including Pulitzer, Northcliffe and Mank's first boss, Herbert Bayard Swope."[87]: 444 Welles said, "Mr. Hearst was quite a bit like Kane, although Kane isn't really founded on Hearst in particular. Many people sat for it, so to speak".[60]: 78 He specifically acknowledged that aspects of Kane were drawn from the lives of two business tycoons familiar from his youth in Chicago—Samuel Insull and Harold Fowler McCormick.[i][22]: 49
The character of Jedediah Leland was based on drama critic Ashton Stevens, George Stevens's uncle and Welles's close boyhood friend.[22]: 66 Some detail came from Mankiewicz's own experience as a drama critic in New York.[23]: 77–78
Many assumed that the character of Susan Alexander Kane was based on Marion Davies, Hearst's mistress whose career he managed and whom Hearst promoted as a motion picture actress. This assumption was a major reason Hearst tried to destroy Citizen Kane.[92][j] Welles denied that the character was based on Davies,[94] whom he called "an extraordinary woman—nothing like the character Dorothy Comingore played in the movie."[22]: 49 He cited Insull's building of the Chicago Opera House, and McCormick's lavish promotion of the opera career of his second wife, Ganna Walska, as direct influences on the screenplay.[22]: 49
The character of political boss Jim W. Gettys is based on Charles F. Murphy, a leader in New York City's infamous Tammany Hall political machine.[28]: 61
Welles credited "Rosebud" to Mankiewicz.[22]: 53 Biographer Richard Meryman wrote that the symbol of Mankiewicz's own damaged childhood was a treasured bicycle, stolen while he visited the public library and not replaced by his family as punishment. He regarded it as the prototype of Charles Foster Kane's sled.[23]: 300 In his 2015 Welles biography, Patrick McGilligan reported that Mankiewicz himself stated that the word "Rosebud" was taken from the name of a famous racehorse, Old Rosebud. Mankiewicz had a bet on the horse in the 1914 Kentucky Derby, which he won, and McGilligan wrote that "Old Rosebud symbolized his lost youth, and the break with his family". In testimony for a copyright infringement suit brought by Hearst biographer Ferdinand Lundberg, Mankiewicz said, "I had undergone psycho-analysis, and Rosebud, under circumstances slightly resembling the circumstances in [Citizen Kane], played a prominent part."[95] Gore Vidal has argued in the New York Review of Books that "Rosebud was what Hearst called his friend Marion Davies's clitoris".[96]
The News on the March sequence that begins the film satirizes the journalistic style of The March of Time, the news documentary and dramatization series presented in movie theaters by Time Inc.[97][98] From 1935 to 1938[99]: 47 Welles was a member of the uncredited company of actors that presented the original radio version.[100]: 77
Houseman claimed that banker Walter P. Thatcher was loosely based on J. P. Morgan.[47]: 55 Bernstein was named for Dr. Maurice Bernstein, appointed Welles's guardian;[22]: 65–66 Sloane's portrayal was said to be based on Bernard Herrmann.[83] Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer, was named for actor Jack Carter.[35]: 155
Political themes
[edit]
Laura Mulvey explored the anti-fascist themes of Citizen Kane in her 1992 monograph for the British Film Institute. The News on the March newsreel presents Kane keeping company with Hitler and other dictators while he smugly assures the public that there will be no war.[101]: 44 She wrote that the film reflects "the battle between intervention and isolationism" then being waged in the United States; the film was released six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was laboring to win public opinion for entering World War II. "In the rhetoric of Citizen Kane," Mulvey writes, "the destiny of isolationism is realised in metaphor: in Kane's own fate, dying wealthy and lonely, surrounded by the detritus of European culture and history."[47]: 15
Journalist Ignacio Ramonet has cited the film as an early example of mass media manipulation of public opinion and the power that media conglomerates have on influencing the democratic process. He believes that this early example of a media mogul influencing politics is outdated and that today "there are media groups with the power of a thousand Citizen Kanes."[102][103] Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is sometimes labeled as a latter-day Citizen Kane.[104][105]
Comparisons have also been made between the career and character of Donald Trump and Charles Foster Kane.[106][107][108] Citizen Kane is reported to be one of Trump's favorite films, and his biographer Tim O'Brien has said that Trump is fascinated by and identifies with Kane.[109] In an interview with filmmaker Errol Morris, Trump explained his own interpretation of the film's themes, saying "You learn in 'Kane' maybe wealth isn't everything, because he had the wealth but he didn't have the happiness. In real life I believe that wealth does in fact isolate you from other people. It's a protective mechanism — you have your guard up much more so [than] if you didn't have wealth...Perhaps I can understand that."[110]
Pre-release controversy
[edit]
To ensure that Hearst's life's influence on Citizen Kane was a secret, Welles limited access to dailies and managed the film's publicity. A December 1940 feature story in Stage magazine compared the film's narrative to Faust and made no mention of Hearst.[20]: 111
The film was scheduled to premiere at RKO's flagship theater Radio City Music Hall on February 14, but in early January 1941 Welles was not finished with post-production work and told RKO that it still needed its musical score.[21]: 205 Writers for national magazines had early deadlines and so a rough cut was previewed for a select few on January 3, 1941[20]: 111 for such magazines as Life, Look and Redbook. Gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (an arch-rival of Louella Parsons, the Hollywood correspondent for Hearst papers) showed up to the screening uninvited. Most of the critics at the preview said that they liked the film and gave it good advanced reviews. Hopper wrote negatively about it, calling the film a "vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man" and criticizing its corny writing and old fashioned photography.[21]: 205
Friday magazine ran an article drawing point-by-point comparisons between Kane and Hearst and documented how Welles had led on Parsons.[20]: 111 Up until this Welles had been friendly with Parsons. The magazine quoted Welles as saying that he could not understand why she was so nice to him and that she should "wait until the woman finds out that the picture's about her boss." Welles immediately denied making the statement and the editor of Friday admitted that it might be false. Welles apologized to Parsons and assured her that he had never made that remark.[21]: 205
Shortly after Friday's article, Hearst sent Parsons an angry letter complaining that he had learned about Citizen Kane from Hopper and not her. The incident made a fool of Parsons and compelled her to start attacking Welles and the film. Parsons demanded a private screening of the film and personally threatened Schaefer on Hearst's behalf, first with a lawsuit and then with a vague threat of consequences for everyone in Hollywood. On January 10 Parsons and two lawyers working for Hearst were given a private screening of the film.[21]: 206 James G. Stewart was present at the screening and said that she walked out of the film.[40]: 11
Soon after, Parsons called Schaefer and threatened RKO with a lawsuit if they released Kane.[20]: 111 She also contacted the management of Radio City Music Hall and demanded that they should not screen it.[21]: 206 The next day, the front page headline in Daily Variety read, "HEARST BANS RKO FROM PAPERS."[111] Hearst began this ban by suppressing promotion of RKO's Kitty Foyle,[73]: 94 but in two weeks the ban was lifted for everything except Kane.[20]: 111
When Schaefer did not submit to Parsons she called other studio heads and made more threats on behalf of Hearst to expose the private lives of people throughout the entire film industry.[21]: 206 Welles was then threatened with an exposé about his romance with the married actress Dolores del Río, who wanted the affair kept secret until her divorce was finalized.[21]: 207 In a statement to journalists Welles denied that the film was about Hearst. Hearst began preparing an injunction against the film for libel and invasion of privacy, but Welles's lawyer told him that he doubted Hearst would proceed due to the negative publicity and required testimony that an injunction would bring.[21]: 209
The Hollywood Reporter ran a front-page story on January 13 that Hearst papers were about to run a series of editorials attacking Hollywood's practice of hiring refugees and immigrants for jobs that could be done by Americans. The goal was to put pressure on the other studios to force RKO to shelve Kane.[20]: 111 Many of those immigrants had fled Europe after the rise of fascism and feared losing the haven of the United States.[21]: 209 Soon afterwards, Schaefer was approached by Nicholas Schenck, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's parent company, with an offer on the behalf of Louis B. Mayer and other Hollywood executives to RKO Pictures of $805,000 to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative.[20]: 111–112 [112]
Once RKO's legal team reassured Schaefer, the studio announced on January 21 that Kane would be released as scheduled, and with one of the largest promotional campaigns in the studio's history. Schaefer brought Welles to New York City for a private screening of the film with the New York corporate heads of the studios and their lawyers.[20]: 112 There was no objection to its release provided that certain changes, including the removal or softening of specific references that might offend Hearst, were made.[20]: 112–113 Welles agreed and cut the running time from 122 minutes to 119 minutes. The cuts satisfied the corporate lawyers.[20]: 113
Trailer
[edit]
Main article: Citizen Kane trailer
Now that the film was completed, RKO had to sell it to moviegoers. The usual method was for a studio film editor to compile a montage of highlights for a coming-attractions trailer, which would be shown to audiences shortly before the film came to their local theater. The trailer for Citizen Kane was something special, and like the feature itself was radically different from the general run. It was really a pioneer of what is now known as a teaser trailer, which piqued viewers' curiosity about the film without actually revealing any of the content.
Written and directed by Welles at Toland's suggestion, the Citizen Kane trailer does not feature a single second of footage of the actual film itself, but acts as a wholly original, tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-documentary piece on the film's production.[37]: 230 Filmed at the same time as Citizen Kane itself, it offers the only existing behind-the-scenes footage of the film. The trailer, shot by staff cameraman Harry Wild instead of Toland, follows an unseen Welles as he provides narration for a tour around the film set, introductions to the film's core cast members, and a brief overview of Kane's character.[22]: 360 The trailer also contains a number of trick shots, including one of Everett Sloane appearing at first to be running into the camera, which turns out to be the reflection of the camera in a mirror.[113]
At the time, it was almost unprecedented for a film trailer to not actually feature anything of the film itself; and while Citizen Kane is frequently cited as a groundbreaking, influential film, Simon Callow argues its trailer was no less original in its approach. Callow writes that it has "great playful charm ... it is a miniature documentary, almost an introduction to the cinema ... Teasing, charming, completely original, it is a sort of conjuring trick: Without his face appearing once on the screen, Welles entirely dominates its five [sic] minutes' duration."[24]: 558–9
Release
[edit]
Radio City Music Hall's management refused to screen Citizen Kane for its premiere. A possible factor was Parsons's threat that The American Weekly would run a defamatory story on the grandfather of major RKO stockholder Nelson Rockefeller.[20]: 115 Other exhibitors feared being sued for libel by Hearst and refused to show the film.[21]: 216 In March Welles threatened the RKO board of governors with a lawsuit if they did not release the film. Schaefer stood by Welles and opposed the board of governors.[21]: 210 When RKO still delayed the film's release Welles offered to buy the film for $1 million and the studio finally agreed to release the film on May 1.[21]: 215
Schaefer managed to book a few theaters willing to show the film. Hearst papers refused to accept advertising.[20]: 115 RKO's publicity advertisements for the film erroneously promoted it as a love story.[21]: 217
Kane opened at the RKO Palace Theatre on Broadway in New York on May 1, 1941,[13] in Chicago on May 6, and in Los Angeles on May 8.[20]: 115 Welles said that at the Chicago premiere that he attended the theater was almost empty.[21]: 216
Response at the time of release
[edit]
Critical reviews fell into three types: great, mixed, and negative. Most were in the first category. The day following the premiere of Citizen Kane, The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote that "it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood... Count on Mr. Welles: he doesn't do things by halves. ... Upon the screen he discovered an area large enough for his expansive whims to have free play. And the consequence is that he has made a picture of tremendous and overpowering scope, not in physical extent so much as in its rapid and graphic rotation of thoughts. Mr. Welles has put upon the screen a motion picture that really moves".[114]
The Washington Post called it "one of the most important films in the history" of filmmaking.[115] The Washington Evening Star said Welles was a genius who created "a superbly dramatic biography of another genius" and "a picture that is revolutionary".[116] New York Daily News critic Kate Cameron called it "one of the most interesting and technically superior films that has ever come out of a Hollywood studio".[117] New York World-Telegram critic William Boehnel said that the film was "staggering and belongs at once among the greatest screen achievements".[118] Time magazine wrote that "it has found important new techniques in picture-making and story-telling."[21]: 211 Life magazine's review said that "few movies have ever come from Hollywood with such powerful narrative, such original technique, such exciting photography."[21]: 211 John C. Mosher of The New Yorker called the film's style "like fresh air" and raved "Something new has come to the movie world at last."[119]: 68 Anthony Bower of The Nation called it "brilliant" and praised the cinematography and performances by Welles, Comingore and Cotten.[120] John O'Hara's Newsweek review called it the best picture he'd ever seen and said Welles was "the best actor in the history of acting."[21]: 211 Welles called O'Hara's review "the greatest review that anybody ever had."[37]: 100
In the UK C. A. Lejeune of The Observer called it "The most exciting film that has come out of Hollywood in twenty-five years"[121] and Dilys Powell of The Sunday Times said the film's style was made "with the ease and boldness and resource of one who controls and is not controlled by his medium."[122]: 63 Edward Tangye Lean of Horizon praised the film's technical style, calling it "perhaps a decade ahead of its contemporaries."[123][k]
Other reviews were mixed. Edwin Schallert of the Los Angeles Times said it was brilliant and skillful at times, but had an ending that "rather fizzled".[125] The Chicago Tribune called the film interesting and different but "its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value".[126] Otis Ferguson of The New Republic said it was "the boldest free-hand stroke in major screen production since Griffith and Bitzer were running wild to unshackle the camera", but also criticized its style, calling it a "retrogression in film technique" and stating that "it holds no great place" in film history.[127] Ferguson reacted to some of the film's celebrated visual techniques by calling them "just willful dabbling" and "the old shell game." In a rare film review, filmmaker Erich von Stroheim criticized the film's story and non-linear structure, but praised the technical style and performances, and wrote "Whatever the truth may be about it, Citizen Kane is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Welles!"[128]
Some prominent critics wrote negative reviews. None of them dismissed the film as being altogether bad, noting the film's undeniable technical effects, but they did find fault with the narrative. Eileen Creelman of The New York Sun called it "a cold picture, unemotional, a puzzle rather than a drama".[35]: 178 In his 1941 review for Sur, Jorge Luis Borges famously called the film "a labyrinth with no center" and predicted that its legacy would be a film "whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again."[129] The Argus Weekend Magazine critic Erle Cox called the film "amazing" but thought that Welles's break with Hollywood traditions was "overdone".[130] Tatler's James Agate called it "the well-intentioned, muddled, amateurish thing one expects from high-brows";[131] he admitted that it was "a quite good film" but insisted that it "tries to run the psychological essay in harness with your detective thriller, and doesn't quite succeed."[132] Other people who disliked the film were W. H. Auden[37]: 98 and James Agee.[37]: 99 After watching the film on January 29, 1942, future British star Kenneth Williams, then aged 15, curtly described the film in his first diary as "boshey rot".[133]
Reception from the public
[edit]
The film did well in cities and larger towns, but it fared poorly in more remote areas. RKO still had problems getting exhibitors to show the film. For example, one chain controlling more than 500 theaters got Welles's film as part of a package but refused to play it, reportedly out of fear of Hearst.[20]: 117 Hearst's disruption of the film's release damaged its box office performance and, as a result, it lost $160,000 during its initial run.[134]: 164 [135] The film earned $23,878 during its first week in New York. By the ninth week it only made $7,279. Overall it lost money in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., but made a profit in Seattle.[21]: 216
Moviegoers who saw the picture generally spread negative word of mouth among their neighbors, and exhibitors in the United States and Canada weren't shy about voicing their reactions, as published in Motion Picture Herald. A few theater owners were discerning, recognizing the startling new techniques but conceding bad box office: "Is likely to make your auditorium resound from vacuousness like the giant stone walls in Kane's incredible castle. Box office or no box office, this unusual film is without doubt a step toward elevating the artistic plane of the motion picture in general."[136] A college-town exhibitor reported, "I thought it was fine, as did the majority of people who attended the performances. However, there were some who either did not like it or did not get it. Business was just average."[137] "Don't try to tell me Orson Welles isn't a genius; herein he has produced a mighty fine picture, and herewith he has established for me the lowest gross that I have ever, ever experienced. I would have sworn that such ridiculous receipts were utterly impossible. If you cater to film connoisseurs, this picture is made for you. But me, I hurt all over."[138] Others were more blunt: "Nobody liked this and said so. We took in just enough to pay for it so considered ourselves very lucky."[139] "One day after showing this we still feel hesitant about walking abroad without an escort. Half of the few dozen that paid to see this masterpiece walked out, and the other half remained only to think up new dirty cracks to cast in our direction on the way out."[140] "High priced picture. But I made a little money on my help. They took off three days because they were afraid of being all alone in the theatre."[141] "You can stand in front of a mirror and call yourself 'sucker' when you play this one. It does not have one redeeming feature. It will not draw; those that do come will not know what it is all about."[142] A Minnesota exhibitor summed up the situation for rural areas: "My patrons still don't know what it was all about. Too long and too deep. No box office value to small towns."[143]
Hearst's response
[edit]
Hearing about Citizen Kane enraged Hearst so much that he banned any advertising, reviewing, or mentioning of it in his papers, and had his journalists libel Welles.[112] Welles used Hearst's opposition as a pretext for previewing the film in several opinion-making screenings in Los Angeles, lobbying for its artistic worth against the hostile campaign that Hearst was waging.[112] A special press screening took place in early March. Henry Luce was in attendance and reportedly wanted to buy the film from RKO for $1 million to distribute it himself. The reviews for this screening were positive. A Hollywood Review headline read, "Mr. Genius Comes Through; 'Kane' Astonishing Picture". The Motion Picture Herald reported about the screening and Hearst's intention to sue RKO. Time magazine wrote that "The objection of Mr. Hearst, who founded a publishing empire on sensationalism, is ironic. For to most of the several hundred people who have seen the film at private screenings, Citizen Kane is the most sensational product of the U.S. movie industry." A second press screening occurred in April.[73]: 94
When Schaefer rejected Hearst's offer to suppress the film, Hearst banned every newspaper and station in his media conglomerate from reviewing—or even mentioning—the film. He also had many movie theaters ban it, and many did not show it through fear of being socially exposed by his massive newspaper empire.[144] The Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for the film's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable. Nevertheless, the film's commercial performance fell short of its creators' expectations.[92] Hearst's biographer David Nasaw points out that Hearst's actions were not the only reason Kane failed, however: the innovations Welles made with narrative, as well as the dark message at the heart of the film (that the pursuit of success is ultimately futile) meant that a popular audience could not appreciate its merits.[145]: 572–573
Hearst's attacks against Welles went beyond attempting to suppress the film. Welles said that while he was on his post-filming lecture tour a police detective approached him at a restaurant and advised him not to go back to his hotel. A 14-year-old girl had reportedly been hidden in the closet of his room, and two photographers were waiting for him to walk in. Knowing he would be jailed after the resulting publicity, Welles did not return to the hotel but waited until the train left town the following morning. "But that wasn't Hearst," Welles said, "that was a hatchet man from the local Hearst paper who thought he would advance himself by doing it."[22]: 85–86
In March 1941, Welles directed a Broadway version of Richard Wright's Native Son (and, for luck, used a "Rosebud" sled as a prop). Native Son received positive reviews, but Hearst-owned papers used the opportunity to attack Welles as a communist.[21]: 213 The Hearst papers vociferously attacked Welles after his April 1941 radio play, "His Honor, the Mayor",[146] produced for The Free Company radio series on CBS.[100]: 113 [147]
Welles described his chance encounter with Hearst in an elevator at the Fairmont Hotel on the night Citizen Kane opened in San Francisco. Hearst and Welles's father were acquaintances, so Welles introduced himself and asked Hearst if he would like to come to the opening. Hearst did not respond. "As he was getting off at his floor, I said, 'Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.' No reply", recalled Welles. "And Kane would have, you know. That was his style—just as he finished Jed Leland's bad review of Susan as an opera singer."[22]: 49–50 [148]
In 1945, Hearst journalist Robert Shaw wrote that the film got "a full tide of insensate fury" from Hearst papers, "then it ebbed suddenly. With one brain cell working, the chief realized that such hysterical barking by the trained seals would attract too much attention to the picture. But to this day the name of Orson Welles is on the official son-of-a-bitch list of every Hearst newspaper".[119]: 102
Despite Hearst's attempts to destroy the film, since 1941 references to his life and career have usually included a reference to Citizen Kane, such as the headline 'Son of Citizen Kane Dies' for the obituary of Hearst's son.[149] In 2012, the Hearst estate agreed to screen the film at Hearst Castle in San Simeon, breaking Hearst's ban on the film.[148]
Contemporary response
[edit]
Modern critics have given Citizen Kane an even more positive response. Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 99% of 125 critics gave the film a positive review, with an average rating of 9.70/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Orson Welles's epic tale of a publishing tycoon's rise and fall is entertaining, poignant, and inventive in its storytelling, earning its reputation as a landmark achievement in film."[150] In April 2021, it was noted that the addition of an 80-year-old negative review from the Chicago Tribune reduced the film's rating from 100% to 99% on the site; Citizen Kane held its 100% rating until early 2021.[151] On Metacritic, however, the film still has a rare weighted average score of 100 out of 100 based on 19 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[152]
Accolades
[edit]
Award Category Nominee(s) Result Academy Awards[153] Outstanding Motion Picture Mercury Nominated Best Director Orson Welles Nominated Best Actor Nominated Best Original Screenplay Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles Won Best Art Direction–Interior Decoration – Black-and-White Perry Ferguson, Van Nest Polglase, Al Fields and Darrell Silvera Nominated Best Cinematography – Black-and-White Gregg Toland Nominated Best Film Editing Robert Wise Nominated Best Scoring of a Dramatic Picture Bernard Herrmann Nominated Best Sound Recording John Aalberg Nominated DVD Exclusive Awards Best Audio Commentary Roger Ebert Won National Board of Review Awards[154][155] Best Film Won Top Ten Films Won Best Acting George Coulouris Won Orson Welles Won National Film Preservation Board National Film Registry Inducted New York Film Critics Circle Awards[156] Best Film Won Best Director Orson Welles Nominated Best Actor Nominated Online Film & Television Association Awards Hall of Fame – Motion Picture Won Online Film Critics Society Awards Best Overall DVD Nominated Satellite Awards Best Classic DVD Citizen Kane: Ultimate Collector's Edition Nominated Saturn Awards Best DVD/Blu-Ray Special Edition Release Citizen Kane: 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition Nominated Village Voice Film Poll Best Film of the Century Won
It was widely believed the film would win most of its Academy Award nominations, but it received only the award for Best Original Screenplay. Variety reported that block voting by screen extras deprived Citizen Kane of Best Picture and Best Actor, and similar prejudices were likely to have been responsible for the film receiving no technical awards.[20]: 117 [157]
Legacy
[edit]
Main article: Legacy of Citizen Kane
Citizen Kane was the only film made under Welles's original contract with RKO Pictures, which gave him complete creative control.[21]: 223 Welles's new business manager and attorney permitted the contract to lapse. In July 1941,[158][159] Welles reluctantly signed a new and less favorable deal with RKO[21]: 223 under which he produced and directed The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), produced Journey into Fear (1943), and began It's All True, a film he agreed to do without payment. In the new contract Welles was an employee of the studio[160] and lost the right to final cut, which later allowed RKO to modify and re-cut The Magnificent Ambersons over his objections.[21]: 223 In June 1942, Schaefer resigned the presidency of RKO Pictures and Welles's contract was terminated by his successor.[58]
The European release of Kane was delayed until after World War II, premiering in Paris in 1946. Initial reception by French critics was influenced by negative views from Jean-Paul Sartre and Georges Sadoul, who criticized Hollywood's cultural sophistication and the film's nostalgic use of flashbacks. However, critic André Bazin delivered a transformative speech in 1946 that shifted public opinion. Bazin praised the film for its innovative use of mise-en-scène and deep focus cinematography, advocating for a filmic realism that allows audiences to engage more actively with the narrative. Bazin's essays, especially "The Technique of Citizen Kane," played a crucial role in enhancing the film's reputation, arguing it revolutionized film language and aesthetics. His defense of "Citizen Kane" as a work of art influenced other critics and contributed to a broader re-evaluation of the film in Europe and the United States.[161]: 37
In the U.S., the film was initially neglected until it began appearing on television in the 1950s and was re-released in theaters. American film critic Andrew Sarris was significant in reviving its reputation, describing it as a profoundly influential American film. Over the decades, "Citizen Kane" has been consistently ranked highly in critical surveys and polls, often cited as the greatest film ever made.[5]
The film's narrative structure, cinematography, and themes have influenced countless filmmakers and films worldwide, asserting its place as a cornerstone in the history of cinema. Notable film directors and critics have acknowledged its impact on their work and the broader film landscape, underscoring its enduring legacy in both theory and practice.[162]
Rights and home media
[edit]
The composited camera negative of Citizen Kane is believed to be lost forever. The most commonly-reported explanation is that it was destroyed in a New Jersey film laboratory fire in the 1970s. However, in 2021, Nicolas Falacci revealed that he had been told "the real story" by a colleague, when he was one of two employees in the film restoration lab which assembled the 1991 "restoration" from the best available elements. Falacci noted that throughout the process he had daily visits in 1990-91 from an unnamed "older RKO executive showing up every day – nervous and sweating". According to Falacci's colleague, this elderly man was keen to cover up a clerical error he had made decades earlier when in charge of the studio's inventory, which had resulted in the original camera negatives being sent to a silver reclamation plant, destroying the nitrate film to extract its valuable silver content. Falacci's account is impossible to verify, but it would have been fully in keeping with industry standard practice for many decades, which was to destroy prints and negatives of countless older films deemed non-commercially viable, to extract the silver.[163]
Subsequent prints were derived from a master positive (a fine-grain preservation element) made in the 1940s and originally intended for use in overseas distribution.[164] Modern techniques were used to produce a pristine print for a 50th Anniversary theatrical reissue in 1991 which Paramount Pictures released for then-owner Turner Broadcasting System,[165] which earned $1.6 million in North America[166] and $1.8 million worldwide.[3]
In 1955, RKO sold the American television rights to its film library, including Citizen Kane, to C&C Television Corp.[167] In 1960, television rights to the pre-1959 RKO's live-action library were acquired by United Artists. RKO kept the non-broadcast television rights to its library.[168]
In 1976, when home video was in its infancy, entrepreneur Snuff Garrett bought cassette rights to the RKO library for what United Press International termed "a pittance". In 1978 The Nostalgia Merchant released the film through Media Home Entertainment. By 1980 the 800-title library of The Nostalgia Merchant was earning $2.3 million a year. "Nobody wanted cassettes four years ago," Garrett told UPI. "It wasn't the first time people called me crazy. It was a hobby with me which became big business."[169] RKO Home Video released the film on VHS and Betamax in 1985.[170]
On December 3, 1984, The Criterion Collection released the film as its first LaserDisc.[171] It was made from a fine grain master positive provided by the UCLA Film and Television Archive.[172] When told about the then-new concept of having an audio commentary on the disc, Welles was skeptical but said "theoretically, that's good for teaching movies, so long as they don't talk nonsense."[37]: 283 In 1992 Criterion released a new 50th Anniversary Edition LaserDisc. This version had an improved transfer and additional special features, including the documentary The Legacy of Citizen Kane and Welles's early short The Hearts of Age.[173]
Turner Broadcasting System acquired broadcast television rights to the RKO library in 1986[174] and the full worldwide rights to the library in 1987.[175] The RKO Home Video unit was reorganized into Turner Home Entertainment that year.[176] In 1991 Turner released a 50th Anniversary Edition on VHS and as a collector's edition that includes the film, the documentary Reflections On Citizen Kane, Harlan Lebo's 50th anniversary album, a poster and a copy of the original script.[177] In 1996, Time Warner acquired Turner and Warner Home Video absorbed Turner Home Entertainment.[178] In 2011, Time Warner's Warner Bros. unit had distribution rights for the film.[179]
In 2001, Warner Home Video released a 60th Anniversary Collectors Edition DVD. The two-disc DVD included feature-length commentaries by Roger Ebert and Peter Bogdanovich, as well as a second DVD with the feature length documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1999). It was simultaneously released on VHS.[180][181] The DVD was criticized for being "too bright, too clean; the dirt and grime had been cleared away, but so had a good deal of the texture, the depth, and the sense of film grain."[182]
In 2003, Welles's daughter Beatrice Welles sued Turner Entertainment, claiming the Welles estate is the legal copyright holder of the film. She claimed that Welles's deal to terminate his contracts with RKO meant that Turner's copyright of the film was null and void. She also claimed that the estate of Orson Welles was owed 20% of the film's profits if her copyright claim was not upheld. In 2007 she was allowed to proceed with the lawsuit, overturning the 2004 decision in favor of Turner Entertainment on the issue of video rights.[183]
In 2011, it was released on Blu-ray and DVD in a 70th Anniversary Edition.[184] The San Francisco Chronicle called it "the Blu-ray release of the year."[185] Supplements included everything available on the 2001 Warner Home Video release, including The Battle Over Citizen Kane DVD. A 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition added a third DVD with RKO 281 (1999), an award winning TV movie about the making of the film. Its packaging extras included a hardcover book and a folio containing mini reproductions of the original souvenir program, lobby cards, and production memos and correspondence.[186] The transfer for the US releases were scanned as 4K resolution from three different 35mm prints and rectified the quality issues of the 2001 DVD.[182] The rest of the world continued to receive home video releases based on the older transfer. This was partially rectified in 2016 with the release of the 75th Anniversary Edition in both the UK and US, which was a straight repackaging of the main disc from the 70th Anniversary Edition.[187][188]
On August 11, 2021 Criterion announced their first 4K Ultra HD releases, a six-film slate, would include Citizen Kane. Criterion indicated each title was to be available in a combo pack including a 4K UHD disc of the feature film as well as the film and special features on the companion Blu-rays.[189] Citizen Kane was released on November 23, 2021 by the collection as a 4K and 3 Blu-ray disc package. However, the release was recalled because at the half-hour mark on the regular blu-ray, the contrast fell sharply, which resulted in a much darker image compared to what was supposed to occur.[190] However this issue does not apply to the 4K version itself.
Colorization controversy
[edit]
In the 1980s, Citizen Kane became a catalyst in the controversy over the colorization of black-and-white films. One proponent of film colorization was Ted Turner,[191] whose Turner Entertainment Company owned the RKO library.[192] A Turner Entertainment spokesperson initially stated that Citizen Kane would not be colorized,[193] but in July 1988 Turner said, "Citizen Kane? I'm thinking of colorizing it."[194] In early 1989 it was reported that two companies were producing color tests for Turner Entertainment. Criticism increased when filmmaker Henry Jaglom stated that shortly before his death Welles had implored him "don't let Ted Turner deface my movie with his crayons."[195]
In February 1989, Turner Entertainment President Roger Mayer announced that work to colorize the film had been stopped due to provisions in Welles's 1939 contract with RKO that "could be read to prohibit colorization without permission of the Welles estate."[196] Mayer added that Welles's contract was "quite unusual" and "other contracts we have checked out are not like this at all."[197] Turner had only colorized the final reel of the film before abandoning the project. In 1991 one minute of the colorized test footage was included in the BBC Arena documentary The Complete Citizen Kane.[l][198]
The colorization controversy was a factor in the passage of the National Film Preservation Act in 1988 which created the National Film Registry the following year. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings reported that "one major reason for doing this is to require people like the broadcaster Ted Turner, who's been adding color to some movies and re-editing others for television, to put notices on those versions saying that the movies have been altered".[199]
Bibliography
[edit]
Notes
[edit]
References
[edit]
Database
[edit]
Official website
Citizen Kane at AllMovie
Citizen Kane at the AFI Catalog of Feature Films
Citizen Kane at IMDb
Citizen Kane at Metacritic
Citizen Kane at Rotten Tomatoes
Citizen Kane at the TCM Movie Database
Citizen Kane at Cinema Belgica
Other
[edit] | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 67 | https://www.bpl.org/blogs/post/is-citizen-kane-really-the-best-movie-ever-made/ | en | Is Citizen Kane Really the Best Movie Ever Made? | [
"https://cor-liv-cdn-static.bibliocommons.com/images/MA-BOSTON-BRANCH/logo.png?1724937038131",
"https://d4804za1f1gw.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2021/08/yyyy-888x444.jpg?ver=220208164658",
"https://d4804za1f1gw.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2021/06/91RQ5d-eIqL-888x444.jpg?ver=2106101... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2021-09-14T00:00:00 | Recently, local high schooler CJ McLaughlin decided to finally watch Citizen Kane to let our patrons know whether or not this classic… | en | https://cor-liv-cdn-static.bibliocommons.com/images/MA-BOSTON-BRANCH/favicon.ico?1724937038131 | https://www.bpl.org/blogs/post/is-citizen-kane-really-the-best-movie-ever-made/ | This summer, Teen Central has two teen employees helping us out with content. Recently, local high schooler CJ McLaughlin decided to finally watch Citizen Kane to let our patrons know whether or not this classic film is worth the hype.
80 years ago last Sunday, radio/theater actor and producer Orson Wells released his first-ever feature film, Citizen Kane. The film has oft-been cited as the greatest film ever made and consistently tops best-of-all-time lists.
In both film circles and for wider audiences, the movie has remained a culturally and technically important piece, and for many film buffs, it’s considered to be mandatory viewing. But as someone who managed to go the entirety of their life, before last week, lying about having seen the movie, I want to pose the following questions: Do you actually need to watch Citizen Kane? Or can you still get away with pretending to?
I’ve been a huge film fan for a long time, and the top level of snobbiest film buffs will make reference to what they see as “true film.” While the idea that any subjective piece could “objectively be the true version of the medium” is an absurd concept in and of itself, many consider Citizen Kane to be a part of that category. In these groups, I would find myself making reference to the handful of clips I'd seen, or vague concepts about the movie, and weirdly enough, that always seemed to do the trick.
But before I go any further, what is Citizen Kane about? Not the idea of the movie, but the movie itself. At its simplest, the film follows a reporter named Jerry Thompson trying to discover the meaning behind the last thing that the fabulously wealthy news tycoon Charles Kane said: “Rosebud.” The majority of the film follows the structure of Thompson interviewing former friends or family members of Kane, and then from there, flashing back into a story depicting Kane’s early idealism, rise to fame and wealth, and the conviction that he held utter power over the beliefs of America.
The character of Kane is considered to be an amalgamation of a variety of later 19th and early 20th-century newspaper owners as well as some of the writers’ own experiences, and many modern interpretations draw parallels between Kane and modern figures like media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and his efforts with Fox News.
Now, as much as this may be a form of film heresy, there are parts of the movie that definitely don’t hold up well. Most central roles like Orson Wells as Kane, or Joseph Cotten, as his longtime friend Jedediah Leland, are portrayed masterfully. However, most of the other actors outside those characters are quite clearly new to film (as the film openly admits in its end credits), and are still stage-acting, rather than movie acting, leading to awkwardly paced scenes throughout the movie.
Still, on a technical level, the film remains very solid. Save for young Kane’s childhood home, all the sets are extremely well designed and decorated and draw the viewer in incredibly well. The camerawork is also very well done, and while it would be great work today, it is made even more impressive by the circumstances of its production.
So the technical side of the movie still holds up well, and the performances are mostly still really good. If you are into film or film history, and you somehow have managed to avoid seeing this already, of course, check it out. The annoying film buffs aren’t wrong about that, but I don’t feel like it has some transcendent power. At the same time, I wouldn’t recommend the movie to anyone just looking for something to watch on a Friday night. Oh and, spoiler alert, Rosebud is the name on Kane’s sled if anyone asks. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 88 | https://www.dvxuser.com/threads/citizen-kane-what-crap.31058/ | en | CITIZEN KANE... what crap! | [
"https://www.dvxuser.com/data/assets/logo/dvxlogo_vb4.png",
"https://www.dvxuser.com/data/assets/logo/dvxlogo_vb4.png",
"https://www.dvxuser.com/data/avatars/m/0/291.jpg?1713497275",
"https://www.dvxuser.com/data/avatars/m/0/291.jpg?1713497275",
"https://www.dvxuser.com/data/avatars/m/4/4489.jpg?1713497275"... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"MattC New member",
"H hiderocketdive New member",
"Cpt. Shiner New member",
"Bigmagic New member",
"P Policar Bronze Member",
"B brianluce Bronze Member",
"XCheck New member",
"M mmm New member",
"vidled DVXuser Sponsor",
"capitalP New member"
] | 2005-09-19T17:43:06+01:00 | well not really. this movie is usually considered the greatest american film ever. it's always at the top of critic's lists.
I tried to watch it once and... | en | DVXuser.com | https://www.dvxuser.com/threads/citizen-kane-what-crap.31058/ | well not really. this movie is usually considered the greatest american film ever. it's always at the top of critic's lists.
I tried to watch it once and thought it was dull and ended up shutting it off. it's one of the movies you feel compelled to be in awe of because everyone tells you how great it is. i just didn't get it. likewise i felt there was greatness in "brother wer out thou" and "hero" with dustin hoffman but no one else seems to have felt that way.
out of curiousity, anyone else think CK is not particularly entertaining? perhaps even, dare i even consider it....overrated???
I agree 100% about Good Will Hunting, but not about Citizen Kane.
Now, I'm not going to get all pretentious film-snob on you (my favorite genres are Horror, Action, etc.) and I agree that it's not pure entertainment. I mean, it's slow in places, disorientingly fast in others, and ultimately frustrating. I mean, look at the ending. What a cheap answer!
But look at the narrative structure of every movie made by an American studio before Citizen Kane, then compare it to Kane's narrative structure. Look at the cinematography and compare it to everything before it. The movie is just so unbelievably original. Then look at film noir: the stories are investigations (like Kane) often told in a series of flashbacks (like Kane) and are mysteries with ultimately tragic, disheartening answers (like Kane.) Look at the cinematography in film noir: low key lighting with deep focus photography and long takes. Kane invented the language of a genre it wasn't even a part of. I mean, the camera movement in Citizen Kane alone could justify its place on the top ten great movies of all time. Welles and Tolland never cut unless they have to--or WANT to--instead brilliantly controlling figure movement and camera movement (and TONS of special effects) to create some of the most bizarre and powerful images ever created on screen.
To be honest, I was more entertained by Die Hard than by Citizen Kane, but utlimately, what's the better movie? (Die Hard is still a great movie, imo.) I think as an artifact of film history and as an influential piece of film making, Kane deserves its place as number one. But "the best movie of all time?" If by "best" you mean "most entertaining" or "most accessable" then absolutely not.
So I agree it's not as entertaining as it could be (though I definitely enjoyed it and plan to see it again), and I agree it's over-rated in some regards. Anything that's rated that highly HAS to be over-rated. But I still think it's earned its spot as a critical darling, and I'd rather see it as number one than Casablanca, even if Casablanca is the more polished, more enjoyable film in most respects.
Sorry for the rant, by the way. I need to type quicker responses...
brianluce,
heck, watching a film is such a personal experience, there will not be two people on the planet who share their film fondness across the board.
That's why discussing film is so futile...oops, what am I doing in here then???
Heck, I thought LOTR was the worst good looking movie ever made.
I liked American Psycho, but haven't met anyone who has actually even seen it!
:happy:
The other thing to keep in mind is that CK is old. You have the benefit of having watched a gazillion movies that came AFTER that was made, so it's almost impossible to imagine what it must of been like to watch it back then.
There's some good points in here, but Brianluce you're right about CK for the most part, when I saw it a few years back I thought something was wrong with me when I didn't like it. I felt like I had to like it, people hold it up so high on this pedestal, but I thought I was the only one on the planet who just thought it was an ok. movie, Keep in mind, it's not a horrible movie like "Gigli" or "Paparazzi" but it's not that great like people say it is...
Just based on it's cinemaphotography alone Citizen Kane is a great movie. It was shot beautifully. It got mixed reviews and did poorly at the box office because William Hearst (the news paper giant, and the inspiration for Kane) basically black listed the movie.
This movie earned it's reputation through it's innovation. Of course most of the people that watch it today are going to get it. They don't know the story behind it, how Hearst fought to have the movie shut down. Having not grown up in that era they don't recognize the break throughs that were made. Most importantly, this is the era of short attention spans and constant action. Most of the viewers today can't sit through movies that don't change scenes every 3 minutes unless there is something blowing up.
I don't get the acclaim this movie has received. I don't like it. I watched it again recently and while it has some interesting camera work I can't honestly say it appeals to me. Taken in the context of its time is something thats hard to do. I'm 50 and have watched movies all my life. Casablanca I get, its a great movie. Citizen Kane? I have a hard time even sitting thru it. Hitchcock did a lot of inovative things that by todays standards are not that fantastic but he was the first on to do it. I would guess its the same with CK.
I grew up with Hitchcock on tv every Sunday and I liked his stuff even as a kid. Segio Leone grabbed my attention more than Hitchcock or anyone since. There are a ton of directors today that have taken those old masters and "kicked em up a notch" with technology and inovation. Its easy to forget that they(the old timers) worked with a lot less and developed a lot of what is common place today. So I'll give Orson the benifit of the doubt but somewhere in the back of my mind I think Walt Disney may have contributed more to the industry.
Bigmagic, I'm disagreeing 100%. Citizen Kane developed the grammar of the Film Noir, changed the way narratives were structured, and basically reinvented cinematography for the next ten years, and continues to influence it to this day.
You can make this argument only if you consider all the following to be insiginifcant:
Deep focus cinematography.
Framed narratives.
Low key lighting.
Long takes.
Special effects to achieve tricks of focus/heavy use of matte shots for purposes other than pure spectacle.
And all the things that came from these innovations (I'd argue that the long take became even more important when widescreen was introduced, and CK set the stage for this. I'd also argue that the whole industry and its structure around the Noir B picture until the 1950s was largely influenced by CK. And I'd argue that movies today which use long takes owe a debt to the movie.)
I'm not even giving Welles all the glory. Tolland and Macievicz or whats-his-face deserve it to. But, utlimately, Casablanca was nothing but a great movie based on the achievements of others. It was incredibly well written, acted, and made, but historically it meant very little. Kane was a revelation. I enjoyed it, I can understand if others didn't, but to dismiss its historical significance is just flat out wrong. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 32 | https://neiloseman.com/tag/producing/ | en | producing Archives | [
"https://neiloseman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Back-To-The-Future-Part-III-1-660x446.jpg",
"https://neiloseman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Young_Biff_and_Old_Biff-660x371.jpg",
"https://neiloseman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Jeffrey-Weissman.jpg",
"https://neiloseman.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/B... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2023-01-30T14:33:53+00:00 | en | Neil Oseman | https://neiloseman.com/tag/producing/ | The reason it’s been so quiet on the blog here is that I’ve insanely taken on producing a no-budget fantasy-adventure web series, Ren: The Girl with the Mark. Readers with long memories may recall I was the DP on the first season way back in 2014, and got involved with post throughout 2015 and into 2016 when it was released. Well, now I’m the showrunner!
I’ve launched a Patreon page to fund the series as an ongoing concern, and you’ll need to subscribe to read it regularly, but here are the first two entries to whet your appetite. Please consider joining our Patreon community to get exclusive behind-the-scenes access, fiction from the world of Ren and much more.
The STory So Far
Let me start by bringing you up to date with where we are now.
Season One of Ren: The Girl with the Mark was released in March 2016, created and written by Kate Madison and Christopher Dane, and directed by Kate. (I joined as the director of photography and ended up as part of the core team who shepherded the show through post-production.) The series went on to win 14 international awards from over 40 nominations, and today has about 14 million aggregate episode views on YouTube – an amazing response!
For one reason and another it wasn’t until 2019 that we started gearing up for Season Two. Kate and I wrote the scripts with Ash Finn and Ashram Maharaj, and in early 2020 we ran a Kickstarter to finance new episodes on a bigger scale than the first season. Sadly that Kickstarter campaign was unsuccessful, and just a few weeks later the Covid-19 pandemic reached the UK, which seemed to draw a permanent line under the project.
Cut to: six months later. It’s the second lockdown and, like a lot of people, I’m super bored. To kill some time I thought it would be fun to write a new draft of Ren Season Two. My goal was to address some problems that had been flagged up with the 2019 draft while keeping as much of the good material as possible. Pretty soon I realised that I needed to know what would happen in Season Three in order to give Season Two the right ending, so I wrote that too.
“Well, that was fun,” I thought when I had finished, and forced myself to put it away and focus on other things.
Almost two years passed. The pandemic receded. And I had an itch. A voice in the back of my head saying, “What if…?”
Finally, around September 2022, I asked Kate and Chris if they would consider letting me take the show on. I had given it some serious thought. After the 2020 Kickstarter didn’t succeed I knew that the new season would have to be made on the same small scale as the first one, with an entirely unpaid cast and crew. I also knew that no big streamer or Hollywood studio was going to come along and wave a magic wand to transform it into a big-budget production, because if that was going to happen it would have happened back in 2016. But Kate and Chris had achieved amazing things on their tiny Season One budget, thanks in no small part to a dedicated amy of volunteers, and I believed I could do the same.
Kate and Chris read my version of the script, they felt it was in keeping with the world they had created, and they trusted me to produce something that would be faithful to the legacy of Season One. Even better, they agreed to each direct an episode!
Kicking OFf 2023
Thanks to everyone who’s joined this community so far! We haven’t even launched it on social media yet – that’s coming later this month – so it’s great to have so many of you eager to be involved.
Things have really started to kick off on Ren Season Two in the last few weeks.
Some of you will remember Born of Hope, Kate Madison’s phenomenally successful Lord of the Rings fan film from 2009. For that film a wooden hand-cart was constructed by Mike Rudin. It then appeared a couple of times in Season One of Ren, and has been living in her front garden ever since. Over Christmas Mike picked it up and took it to his garage workshop where he’ll be refurbishing it and turning it into a Kah’Nath prison cart that features in 202 (Season Two, Episode Two) and 203 (Season Two, Episode Three)… and again in Season Three… but let’s not get ahead of ourselves!
Meanwhile Hans Goosen, who helped make the reather for Season One as well as various other props, and appeared as both a villager and a Kah’Nath soldier, is making some of the new coins in the Alathian currency. I say “new” – they were all designed for Season One by James Ewing and Christopher Dane but only the boars and kings were actually made. Hans is now completing the set with horses, stags, eagles and wolves. First though he had to work out what each one is worth to create a realistic currency system – more on that in a future lore post!
Ronin Traynor, who returns as stunt co-ordinator for Season Two, has already planned and videoed the choreography for part of the knife fight in 204.
Locations have been the biggest area of our focus, however. Whereas Season One was mostly set in Lyngarth, Ren’s village, Season Two is all about Ren and Hunter’s journey to find the Archivist. Just yesterday Ash Finn went up to the Peak District to look at a potential location for Tarik’s Mill, a place mentioned in Season One but not yet seen. We are also considering locations in South Wales and near Portsmouth as well as in Cambridgeshire, so we’re going to be racking up the miles!
We’re also looking for a studio space to base ourselves in. If anyone knows of a barn or warehouse type of building in Cambridgeshire that might be available at an affordable rate, please let me know!
With the runaway success of the first instalment, there was no way that Universal Pictures weren’t going to make another Back to the Future, with or without creators Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis. So after confirming that Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd were willing to reprise their roles as Marty McFly and Doc Emmett Brown, the producer and director got together to thrash out story ideas.
They knew from the fan mail which had been pouring in that they had to pick up the saga where they had left off: with Doc, Marty and his girlfriend Jennifer zooming into the future to do “something about your kids!” They soon hit upon the idea of an almanac of sport results being taken from 2015 into the past by Marty’s nemesis Biff Tannen (Thomas F. Wilson), resulting in a “Biff-horrific” alternate 1985 which Marty and Doc must undo by journeying into the past themselves.
Gale’s first draft of the sequel, written up while Zemeckis was away in England shooting Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, had Biff giving the almanac to his younger self in 1967. Marty would don bell-bottom trousers and love beads to blend into the hippy culture, meet his older siblings as very young children and his mother Lorraine as an anti-war protestor, and endanger his own existence again by preventing his parents going on the second honeymoon during which he was conceived.
Upon returning from England and reading the draft, Zemeckis had two main notes: add a fourth act set in the Wild West, and how about 1955 again instead of 1967? “We could actually do what the audience really, really wants, which is to go back and revisit the movie they just saw,” Zemeckis later explained. “That is the thing that excited me most, this idea of seeing the same movie from a different angle.”
Adding the Wild West act ballooned the script to over two-and-a-half hours with an estimated budget of $60 million, far more than Universal wanted to spend. So Gale revised the screenplay, expanding it further with a neat point in the middle where it could be split in half. As two films, each budgeted at $35 million but shot back-to-back over 11 months, the project was much more appealing to the studio. However, it was still a bold and unusual move for Universal to green-light two sequels simultaneously, something that it’s easy to forget in these days of long-form movie franchises planned out years in advance.
A sticking point was Crispin Glover. As Marty’s father George McFly he had been a difficult actor to work with on the first film, and now he was demanding more than a ten-fold pay increase to appear in the sequels. “Crispin… asked for the same money that Michael J. Fox was receiving, as well as script approval and director approval,” according to Gale. He gave Glover’s agent two weeks to come back with a more realistic offer, but it didn’t come. Glover would not be reprising his role.
Gale accordingly made George dead in the Biff-horrific 1985, and Zemeckis employed several tricks to accomplish his other scenes. These included the reuse of footage from Part I, and hanging cheap replacement actor Jeffrey Weissman upside-down in a futuristic back brace throughout the 2015 scenes. Life casts of Glover’s face taken for the ageing effects in Part I were even used to produce prosthetic make-up appliances for Weissman so that he would resemble Glover more closely. “Oh, Crispin ain’t going to like this,” Fox reportedly remarked, and he was right. Glover would go on to successfully sue the production for using his likeness without permission, with the case triggering new Screen Actors Guild rules about likeness rights.
Make-up was a huge part of the second film, since all the main actors had to portray their characters at at least two different ages, and some played other members of the family too. A 3am start in the make-up chair was not unusual, the prosthetics became hot and uncomfortable during the long working days, and the chemicals used in their application and removal burnt the actors’ skin. “It was a true psychological challenge to retain enough concentration to approach the character correctly and maintain the performance,” said Wilson at the time.
Filming began in February 1989 with the ’55 scenes. To save time and money, only one side of the Hill Valley set – still standing on the Universal backlot – was dressed for this period. The company then shot on stage for a few weeks before returning to the backlot in March, by which time production designer Rick Carter and his team had transformed the set into a gangland nightmare to represent Biff-horrific 1985. In May the company revisited the Hill Valley set once more to record the 2015 scenes.
When the real 2015 rolled around, many were quick to compare the film’s vision of the future to reality, but Gale always knew that he would fail if he tried to make genuine predictions. “We decided that the only way to deal with it was to make it optimistic, and have a good time with it.” Microwave meals had begun to compete with home cooking in the ‘80s, so Gale invented a leap forward with the pizza-inflating food hydrator. Kids watched too much TV, so he envisaged a future in which this was taken to a ridiculous extreme, with Marty Jr. watching six channels simultaneously – not a million miles from today’s device-filled reality.
While the opening instalment of the trilogy had been relatively light on visual effects, Part II required everything from groundbreaking split-screens to flying cars and hoverboards. This last employed a range of techniques mostly involving Fox, Wilson and three other actors, plus five operators, hanging from cranes by wires. While every effort was made to hide these wires from camera – even to the extent of designing the set with a lot of camouflaging vertical lines – the film went down in VFX history as one of the first uses of digital wire removal.
But perhaps the most complex effect in the film was a seemingly innocuous dinner scene in which Marty, Marty Jr. and Marlene McFly all share a pizza. The complication was that all three roles were played by Michael J. Fox. To photograph the scene and numerous others in which cast members portrayed old and young versions of themselves, visual effects wizards Industrial Light & Magic developed a system called VistaGlide.
Based on the motion control rigs that had been used to shoot spaceships for Star Wars, the VistaGlide camera was mounted on a computer-controlled dolly. For the dinner scene, Fox was first filmed as old Marty by a human camera operator, with the VistaGlide recording its movements. Once Fox had switched to his Marty Jr. or Marlene costume and make-up, the rig could automatically repeat the camerawork while piping Fox’s earlier dialogue to a hidden earpiece so that he could speak to himself. Later the three elements were painstakingly and seamlessly assembled using hand-drawn masks and an analogue device called an optical printer.
The technically challenging Part II shoot came to an end on August 1st, 1989, as the team captured the last pieces of the rain-drenched scene in which Marty receives a 70-year-old letter telling him that Doc is living in the Old West. Four weeks later, the whole cast and crew were following Doc’s example as they began filming Part III.
In order to have open country visible beyond the edges of 1885’s Hill Valley, the filmmakers opted to leave the Universal backlot and build a set 350 miles north in Sonora, California. The town – which had appeared in classic westerns like High Noon and Pale Rider – was chosen for its extant railway line and its genuine 19th century steam locomotive which would form a pivotal part of the plot.
Joining the cast was Mary Steenburgen as Doc’s love interest Clara. Initially unsure about the role, she was persuaded to take it by her children who were fans of the original film. “I confess to having been infatuated with her, and I think it was mutual,” LLoyd later admitted of his co-star. Though the pair never got involved, Part III’s romantic subplot did provide the veteran of over 30 films with his first on-screen kiss.
By all accounts, an enjoyable time was had by the whole cast and crew in the fresh air and open spaces of Sonora. Fox, who had simultaneously been working on Family Ties during the first two films, finally had the time to relax between scenes, even leading fishing trips to a nearby lake.
The set acquired the nickname “Club Hill Valley” as a volleyball court, mini golf and shooting range were constructed. “We had a great caterer,” recalled director of photography Dean Cundey, “but everybody would rush their meal so that they could get off to spend the rest of their lunch hour in their favourite activity.”
There was one person who was not relaxed, however: Robert Zemeckis. Part II was due for release on November 20th, about halfway through the shoot for Part III. While filming the action-packed climax in which the steam train propels the DeLorean to 88mph, the director was simultaneously supervising the sound mix for the previous instalment. After wrapping at the railway line, Zemeckis would fly to Burbank and eat his dinner on the dubbing stage while giving the sound team notes. He’d then sleep at the Sheraton Universal and get up at 4:30am to fly back to Sonora.
The train sequence had plenty of other challenges. Multiple DeLoreans had been employed in the making of the trilogy so far, including a lightweight fibreglass version that was lifted on cables or hoisted on a forklift for Part II’s flying scenes, and two off-road versions housing Volkswagen racing engines for Part III’s desert work. Another was now outfitted with railway wheels by physical effects designer Michael Lantieri. “One of the scariest things to do was the DeLorean doing the wheelie in front of the train,” he noted in 2015. “We had cables and had it hooked to the front of the train… A big cylinder would raise the front of the car.”
The film’s insurance company was unhappy about the risks of putting Michael J. Fox inside a car that could potentially derail and be crushed by the train, so whenever it was not possible to use a stunt double the action was played out in reverse; the locomotive would pull the DeLorean, and the footage would subsequently be run backwards.
The makers of Mission: Impossible 7 recently drove a full-scale mock-up of a steam locomotive off an unfinished bridge, but Back to the Future’s team opted to accomplish a very similar stunt in miniature. A quarter-scale locomotive was constructed along with a matching DeLorean, and propelled to its doom at 20mph with six cameras covering the action. Marty, of course, has returned safely to 1985 moments earlier.
Part III wrapped on January 12th, 1990 and was released on May 25th, just six months after Part II. Although each instalment made less money than its predecessor, the trilogy as a whole grossed almost $1 billion around the world, about ten times its total production cost. The franchise spawned a theme park ride, an animated series, comics and most recently a West End musical.
But what about Part IV? Thomas F. Wilson is a stand-up comedian as well as an actor, and on YouTube you can find a track of his called “Biff’s Questions Song” which humorously answers the most common queries he gets from fans. The penultimate chorus reveals all: “Do you all hang out together? No we don’t / How’s Crispin Glover? Never talk to him / Back to the Future IV? Not happening / Stop asking me the question!”
Spaceman from Pluto is a 1985 sci-fi comedy starring Eric Stoltz and Christopher Lloyd. Lloyd plays Professor Brown, an eccentric scientist with a pet chimp, who builds a time machine out of an old fridge. Stoltz portrays a teenage video pirate, Marty McFly, who is accidentally sent back to the 1950s in the machine. After almost wiping himself from existence by endangering his parents’ first meeting, Marty returns to his own time using the power generated by an atomic bomb test in the Nevada desert.
Fortunately this movie was released in some alternate version of history. In our timeline it went through a number of changes in writing and production to become the blockbuster classic Back to the Future.
For co-writer and producer Bob Gale it all started when he came across his father’s highschool yearbook and realised that, had he and his father been peers, they would never have been friends. Spotting the comedy potential in the concept of a teenager going to school with his parents, Gale sat down with co-writer and director Robert Zemeckis to develop a script.
The pair knew they needed a time machine and decided that it would be created by a backyard inventor rather than some government organisation. “I can’t really put my finger on when I stumbled on the idea of time travel,” said Gale in 2002, “whether it was from watching The Twilight Zone, reading Superman comics, or when the H.G. Wells Time Machine – the George Pal movie – came out, but I do remember being totally fascinated by that film.”
Getting Back to the Future made proved challenging. Most of the studios that Gale and Zemeckis approached found the script too sweet and innocent compared with the typical R-rated teen movies of the time. Disney, on the other hand, felt that the mother-falls-for-son plot was too taboo.
Making matters worse was the duo’s less than spectacular track record. Their first two feature films, I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars, were both box office flops. They even had the dubious honour of writing the least successful film of Steven Spielberg’s directorial career so far, 1941.
Everything changed when Michael Douglas hired Zemeckis to direct 1984’s Romancing the Stone. The adventure romp was a hit and suddenly everyone in the notoriously fickle Hollywood wanted Back to the Future. Spielberg, who had always loved the script, signed on as executive producer and – after a false start at Columbia – the movie was green-lit by Universal Pictures.
Studio president Sid Sheinberg requested a number of script changes. Professor Brown became “Doc” and his chimp became a dog. Marty’s video piracy (which would have explained his possession of the camcorder with which he films the time machine’s test run) was written out, as the studio were understandably unwilling to promote the revenue-slashing crime.
Sheinberg also hated the title Back to the Future and wanted it changed to Spaceman from Pluto, a reference to the comic clutched by the Peabody children after the DeLorean crashes into their barn on arriving in 1955. Zemeckis and Gale turned to Spielberg to help them dodge this title without offending Sheinberg; his solution was to send a memo saying what a big laugh they all got out of Sheinberg’s joke. The studio president never mentioned it again.
The title Back to the Future was retained, but the barn scene did prompt another change. By this point the writers had realised that an immobile fridge was not dramatic or practical as a time machine, and were searching for a suitable vehicle for Doc to build it into. They chose the slick, stainless steel DeLorean with its futuristic gull-wing doors so that the Peabody family could mistake it for a UFO.
Budget concerns drove the elimination of the A-bomb scene. Shooting on location and building the miniatures of the bomb and its test tower were estimated to cost $1 million. Switching the power source to a lightning bolt not only saved this money by keeping all the action in Hill Valley, it enhanced the time metaphor represented by the clock tower as well as giving Doc an active part in the climax rather than being stuck in a blast bunker with a walkie-talkie.
The filmmakers’ first choice for the role of Marty McFly was Michael J. Fox, the 23-year-old star of sitcom Family Ties. But that show’s creator, Gary David Goldberg, refused to even let Fox see the Back to the Future script, fearing the actor would love it and resent Goldberg for not releasing him from his Family Ties commitment.
A disappointed Zemeckis accordingly began screen-testing other actors, eventually narrowing the choice down to C. Thomas Howell (best known for the coming-of-age drama The Outsiders) and Eric Stoltz (who had appeared in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and The Wild Life). It seems that Sid Sheinberg was Stoltz’s most vocal advocate. Gale recalled the studio president declaring: “I’m so convinced that Eric is going to be great in this part, if it doesn’t work out you can recast it and start all over again.”
No-one expected that to actually happen.
Filming began on November 26th, 1984. The logistics of transforming a real town into Hill Valley in both 1955 and 1985 were daunting, so instead production designer Lawrence G. Paull adapted the town square set on Universal Studios’ backlot, which had originally been built for the 1948 film noir An Act of Murder.
Special effects supervisor Kevin Pike had taken three DeLoreans and, working to concept art by the legendary Ron Cobb amongst others, fitted them with a variety of aircraft surplus parts and other junk to create the iconic time machine. The “Mr. Fusion” generator added to the vehicle in the final scene started life as a coffee grinder.
Cast in the role of Doc Brown was Christopher Lloyd, whose prior roles included a Klingon commander in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, a psychiatric patient in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and five years in the sitcom Taxi. In another alternate timeline he wasn’t involved in Back to the Future either, having binned the script in favour of a stage role in New York; it was his wife who made him reconsider.
Basing the character on the conductor Leopold Stokowski, Lloyd made the Doc larger than life. Eric Stoltz had a very different approach, a method approach, focusing on the serious aspect of Marty’s out-of-time predicament and apparently ignoring the fact that he was starring in a comedy. “Eric didn’t get it,” camera assistant Clyde E. Bryan remembered in 2015. “Eric didn’t understand the physical, pratfall type of humour that Bob [Zemeckis] was looking for.”
By the sixth week of filming, almost halfway through the schedule, Zemeckis knew he had a huge problem. After conferring with Gale and his fellow producer Neil Canton, the director asked Spielberg to come to the editing suite and watch the 45-minute rough cut of everything that had been shot so far. All the filmmakers agreed that Stoltz had to go.
Unwilling to have Universal shut down the film and suffer the attendant negative press, Zemeckis kept filming with Stoltz for another week, with most of the cast and crew unaware of the situation. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Canton worked out exactly how much reshoots would cost ($4 million) while Zemeckis and Gale went back to Goldberg at Family Ties, begging him to let Michael J. Fox take the role. Goldberg agreed on condition that the TV show would take priority. Fox himself claims to have merely weighed the script in his hand before agreeing to do it.
During the lunch break on Thursday, January 10th, 1985, halfway through filming the DeLorean’s test run in the car park of the Twin Pines Mall, Zemeckis called Stoltz into his trailer and broke the bad news. By the following Monday, Michael J. Fox was Marty McFly.
The young actor’s schedule was exhausting. He would wake at 9am, work on Family Ties from 10am to 6:30pm, get driven to Universal and shoot Back to the Future until 2:30am. Any scenes that required Marty in daylight had to be filmed at weekends.
Nonetheless, Fox somehow managed to squeeze in guitar lessons in preparation for Marty’s performance at the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. He already had some experience with the instrument, but was determined to learn to play “Johnny B. Goode” note for note so that he could finger-sync perfectly to the pre-recorded track. Marty’s singing voice was provided by Mark Campbell, while the energetic choreography of his performance incorporated the signature moves of Pete Townshend, Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton as well as Chuck Berry.
The scene is one of the most memorable in the movie, but Zemeckis and Gale were very worried about it during editing. “It’s the only scene that doesn’t advance story or character, and we didn’t know how that was going to play,” said Gale. A preview screening in San Jose removed any doubts; the audience loved “Johnny B. Goode” and everything else about the movie.
After a second preview, this time with Sid Sheinberg in attendance, Universal realised they were onto a winner and moved the film’s release date up to the July 4th weekend, paying through the nose to accelerate post-production.
“I want it to be violent,” Zemeckis told the animators creating the effect of the DeLorean breaking the time barrier, “something akin to a Neanderthal sitting on the hood of the car, chipping away at the fabric of time in front of him.” The hand-drawn cell animation combined with built-in lighting on the car and actual fire trails that had been captured on location, plus additional pyrotechnics overlaid after the fact, created the signature effect.
Meanwhile, Alan Silvestri assembled the largest orchestra in Universal’s history to record Back to the Future’s iconic score, and a tie-in single was provided by Huey Lewis and the News. The latter took a couple of attempts to get right; Lewis’ first submission was a minor-key track that didn’t work at all, according to Zemeckis. It was only after the filmmaker showed Lewis the skateboarding scene that he understood the upbeat mood required and composed “The Power of Love”.
Fox was away filming a Family Ties special in England when Back to the Future was released. He was surprised to get a call from his agent telling him that it was the biggest film in America. It spent 12 weeks at the top of the US box office charts and quickly became part of popular culture, with even Presidents Reagan and Bush Senior giving speeches about taking the country “back to the future”. To date it has grossed almost $400 million.
Summing up the film’s appeal in 2002, Gale offered: “There’s something very special about this story that everyone can identify with, the idea of trying to imagine what your parents were like when they were kids – that just touches everybody.”
When Back to the Future was released on VHS in May 1986, fans noticed a small change from the theatrical version. There as expected was the DeLorean’s lift-off and departure to the future – originally intended by Zemeckis and Gale simply as a joke on which to end the story. But now, sandwiched between that final scene and the end credits, was a caption.
The caption read: “To be continued…”
“I’m going to carve your heart out with a spoon!”
“Why a spoon, cousin? Why not an ax or a…?”
“Because it’s dull, you twit! It’ll hurt more!”
Alan Rickman’s scenery-chomping Sheriff of Nottingham may be widely considered the best thing in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, but there is plenty more to enjoy in this classic action romp even now, 31 years on from its release.
“There was gold on the page,” claimed executive producer David Nicksay of the screenplay by Pen Densham and John Watson, which he read in early 1990. Both Fox and Tri-Star were working on their own Robin Hood movies, so Nicksay’s comparatively small company, Morgan Creek Productions, had to move fast to avoid being buried at the box office.
Director Kevin Reynolds was hired for his previous collaborations with Kevin Costner, having given the star his big break on 1988’s Fandango as well as directing part of Dances With Wolves. Following a scant ten weeks of prep, Reynolds launched into shooting Prince of Thieves against the ticking clock of the approaching winter.
The English weather was as cooperative as you might imagine, but no-one could have predicted that unusual winds would cause Heathrow to divert all its flights over the Buckinghamshire forest standing in for Sherwood, playing havoc with the sound.
Kevin Costner – who had coincidentally been offered and turned down Fox’s Robin Hood – arrived from the Dances With Wolves editing room just three days before filming began. His very first scene required him to jump out of a rowboat on the Sussex coast and wade to shore, even as his woollen cloak soaked up half his bodyweight in water. Later he spent four days immersed in the freezing waters of Aysgarth Falls, North Yorkshire, for the sequence in which his character battles Little John.
The crew also shot in Wiltshire, Northumberland and even Carcassonne in France, but never set foot in Nottinghamshire. The film’s most derided geographical anomaly is the stop-off at Hadrian’s Wall, which somehow falls on Robin’s route from Dover to Nottingham.
The character’s accent is also geographically challenged, partly due to a disagreement between the two Kevins about whether an English Costner would be distracting for audiences. The result is best summed up by the man himself on the DVD commentary: “Well, there’s my dumb-ass accent. It was something I wanted to do, and I wasn’t very good at it.”
Test screenings were positive but showed that Rickman’s sheriff – whose part had been beefed up by Reynolds in last-minute rewrites – was more popular than Costner’s hero. The producers insisted on redressing the balance in the edit, leading to Reynolds storming out and a 2009 director’s cut that reinstated Rickman’s extra material. (The two Kevins got over their differences in time for 1995’s Waterworld… and I’m sure they’re both very glad about that.)
Legendary cinematographer Doug Milsome ensured that Prince of Thieves’ visuals were beyond reproach. To capture sweeping views of the forest hideout he mounted a Wescam – a camera stabiliser typically used for helicopter shots – to a truss erected between the trees.
The famous arrow POV shot, hurtling through the woods, took a week to plan and execute. A static arrow was blue-screened over a travelling forest plate photographed at a stately one frame per second. Originally intended just for the trailer, the shot caused such a buzz amongst the public that it was written into the film itself.
Another highlight is the score by Michael Kamen, who based his love theme on an actual medieval tune. For the tie-in single, Bryan Adams and his keyboardist Mutt Lange took that same theme and added lyrics, turning it into the power ballad “(Everything I Do) I Do It For You”. The track garnered an Oscar nomination and won a Grammy, and spent 16 weeks at the top of the UK charts, a run still unbeaten today.
The achievements of the film itself were more mixed. Alan Rickman bagged a Bafta for his spirited turn as the Sheriff of Nottingham, while Kevin Costner won a Golden Raspberry for Worst Actor, and Christian Slater was nominated for Worst Supporting Actor. The lacklustre reviews did no harm to the box office though; Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves was the second-highest grossing film of 1991, surpassed only by Terminator 2: Judgment Day.
And what about the other Robin Hood films that Reynolds and co had raced to beat? Tri-star’s project never left the starting blocks, while Fox’s effort, starring Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman and exec-produced by Die Hard’s John McTiernan, went straight to television. In fact the only film to challenge Prince of Thieves for many years was the Mel Brooks comedy, Robin Hood: Men in Tights. This parody is surely the ultimate evidence of Prince of Thieves’ cultural impact.
For five decades in a row, Citizen Kane was voted the greatest film of all time in Sight & Sound’s International Critic’s Choice poll. Although pipped to the top spot by Vertigo in the latest poll, there are still plenty of filmmakers, academics and fans who consider actor-director Orson Welles’ 1941 debut the very pinnacle of cinematic accomplishment.
The spoilt son of a hotelier and a concert pianist, Orson Welles found fame in 1938 when he directed and starred in a radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds which was so convincing that thousands thought it was real and fled their homes. Not long afterwards, RKO, one of the five big studios of Hollywood’s Golden Age, offered a generous two-picture deal to the 24-year-old who had never made a film before and didn’t much want to.
12 months and two abandoned concepts later, Welles teamed with screenplay-fixer Herman J. Mankiewicz, whose past projects included The Wizard of Oz, to script the rise and fall of a powerful newspaper magnate based on William Randolph Hearst. The pair went through five drafts, making changes for creative, financial and legal reasons (hoping to avoid a lawsuit from Hearst).
The story’s fictionalised press baron, Charles Foster Kane, dies in the opening scene, but his mysterious last word – “Rosebud” – spurs a journalist to investigate his life. The journalist’s interviews with Kane’s friends and associates lead the viewer into extended flashbacks, an innovative structure for the time.
Welles himself took the title role, spending many hours in the make-up chair to portray Kane from youth to old age. Inventive, non-union make-up artist Maurice Seiderman developed new techniques to create convincing wrinkles that would not restrict the actor’s facial expressions. Sometimes Welles would be called as early as 2:30am, holding production meetings while Seiderman worked on him.
“I was just as made-up as a young man as an old man,” Welles said later, noting that he wore a prosthetic nose, face-lifting tape and a corset to satisfy both his own vanity and the demands of the studio for a handsome leading man.
The young auteur – who directed part of the film from a wheelchair after fracturing his ankle – was not easy to work with. Editor Robert Wise said: “He could one moment be guilty of a piece of behaviour that was so outrageous it would make you want to tell him to go to Hell and walk off the picture. Before you could do it he’d come up with some idea that was so brilliant that it would literally have your mouth gaping open, so you never walked. You stayed.”
Welles was keen for his film to look different from others, drawing on his experience of directing theatre. The leading DP of the time, Gregg Toland, jumped at the chance to break the rules. Influenced by German Expressionism, he was not afraid of silhouettes and bright shafts of light.
Welles cast many of his Mercury Players – a theatre repertory company he had set up himself – who he knew could handle long takes. He insisted on a large depth of field and often shot from low angles to mimic the experience of a theatre-goer, specifically someone in the front row looking up at the cast. This required many of the sets to have ceilings, unconventionally, and these were made of fabric in some cases so that the boom mic could record through them.
Special effects were used extensively to reduce set-building costs and avoid location shooting wherever possible. One example is a crane-up from a theatre’s stage to a pair of technicians watching from the flies above; the middle part of the shot is a matte painting, bridging the two live-action set pieces. In another scene, the camera travels through a neon sign on the roof of a building and down through the skylight; the rooftop is a miniature, the sign is rigged to split apart as the camera moves through it, and a flash of lightning eases the transition into the live-action set.
“We were under schedule and under budget,” Welles proudly stated in a 1982 interview. He cheated though, because he asked the studio for ten days of camera tests, citing his inexperience behind the lens, and used those ten days to start shooting the movie!
When Citizen Kane was premiered in May 1941, William Randolph Hearst was not fooled by the script tweaks and took the title character as an unflattering portrayal of himself. While he was unable to suppress the film’s release – though not for the want of trying – a smear campaign in his publications ensured it only enjoyed moderate success and that Welles would never have the filmmaking career that such a startling debut should have sparked. It wasn’t until the 1950s that Citizen Kane received the critical acclaim which it still holds today, 81 years on.
Released 40 years ago, Terry Gilliam’s surreal sci-fi adventure Time Bandits remains a supremely imaginative film, defying conventions of plot and never talking down to its target audience of children. Let’s take a time portal back to 1981 and find out how it was made.
“I was broke. I had to write something fast,” Gilliam once said of the film’s origins. By other accounts he conceived Time Bandits when Brazil’s development stalled due to financier Denis O’Brien “not getting it”. (O’Brien was George Harrison’s partner at Handmade Films, which had originally been set up to fund the Monty Python feature Life of Brian.)
After dreaming up the idea of a knight on horseback bursting out of a child’s wardrobe, Gilliam jotted down a mere two sides of notes under the characteristically whimsical heading, “The film that dares not speak its name: a treatment… not a cure”. After describing the opening sequence, in which ten-year-old Kevin is whisked through a time portal by a rabble of robber dwarves while pursued by God, the treatment brazenly states: “And so starts this terrific attempt to get the movie moneybags to part with a few million bucks.”
The moneybags were not convinced, however. O’Brien took Gilliam’s script, co-written with Michael Palin, around LA and returned empty-handed. It was then that O’Brien and Harrison decided to put up the film’s $5 million budget themselves, with the ex-Beatle even mortgaging his office building to do so.
The script was ambitious, featuring as it did a tour of historical settings from the Napoleonic Wars, through Sherwood Forest and ancient Greece, to the deck of the Titanic, and from there into the “Time of Legends”. This last sequence finds the protagonists aboard a boat which turns out to be a hat worn by a giant. Although this might seem a classic product of a Python’s imagination, Gilliam in fact admits to stealing the idea from a book by fantasy artist Brian Froud, who would go on to be a conceptual designer on Time Bandits’ nearest thematic neighbour, the Terry Jones-scripted Labyrinth (1986).
Palin wrote the part of Robin Hood for himself, but O’Brien insisted on casting John Cleese to improve the film’s box office prospects. Palin instead took the role of Vincent, hapless lover of Shelley Duvall’s Pansy. It was Duvall who was hapless, however, when Gilliam climbed some scaffolding to demonstrate to his cast how to fall correctly and ended up landing on her.
Amongst the actors playing the eponymous Time Bandits were Kenny Baker, best known as R2-D2 in the first six Star Wars films, Jack Purvis, who played a number of Jawas and Ewoks in the same franchise, and David Rappaport, whose extensive credits include episodes of The Young Ones, The Goodies and Not the Nine O’Clock News. A seventh bandit, Horseflesh, was cut over fears that Disney might perceive a Snow White rip-off and sue.
“I always thought of it like the mini Pythons,” said Gilliam of the bandit gang. “There was the leader, then there was the second one who really thought he could do it better…”
Meanwhile, the screenplay specifically called for the Greek king Agamemnon to be “none other than Sean Connery, or an actor of equal but cheaper stature”. O’Brien, who played golf with Connery, simply offered the part to the man himself. The cheeky Pythons accordingly updated the stage direction to read: “none other than Sean Connery, who it turns out we can afford”.
Nonetheless, creativity was in much greater supply than money, and Gilliam employed clever editing, reverse shots and miniatures to capture his vision within the budget. “I don’t think that there was anyone in America who believed that film cost less than 15 if not 20 million dollars,” O’Brien opined in a 1989 documentary.
O’Brien was not always supportive, however. He wanted to cut certain controversial moments like Vermin (Tiny Ross) eating rats, but Gilliam fought him. “There was a point where I threatened to burn the negative,” the director admitted in the same documentary.
O’Brien particularly hated the famously downbeat ending. Kevin wakes up in his own bed during a house fire, and is rescued by none other than Sean Connery. Connery himself suggested this second role after he proved unavailable to film Agamemnon’s scripted reappearance (and death) in the showdown at the Fortress of Ultimate Darkness.
The controversial moment comes after Connery’s firefighter departs; Kevin’s parents touch a piece of concentrated evil and immediately explode. O’Brien was forced to withdraw his objections to this shocking twist, however, when a test-screening audience chose the ending as their favourite part of the movie. While many fans of Time Bandits might agree, Gilliam believed that the test audience were simply trying to say that they were glad the movie was over!
Next month, Terminator 2: Judgment Day turns 30. Made by a director and star at the peaks of their powers, T2 was the most expensive film ever at the time, and remains both the highest-grossing movie of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s career and the sequel which furthest out-performed its progenitor. It is also one of a handful of films that changed the world of visual effects forever, signalling as it did – to borrow the subtitle from its woeful follow-up – the rise of the machines.
The original Terminator, a low-budget surprise hit in 1984, launched director James Cameron’s career and cemented Schwarzenegger’s stardom, but it wasn’t until 1990 that the sequel was green-lit, mainly due to rights issues. At the Cannes Film Festival that year, Cameron handed executive producer Mario Kassar his script.
Today it’s easy to forget how risky it was to turn the Terminator, an iconic villain, an unstoppable, merciless death machine from an apocalyptic future, into a good guy who doesn’t kill anyone, stands on one leg when ordered, and looks like a horse when he attempts to smile. But Kassar didn’t balk, granting Cameron a budget ten times what he had had for the original, while stipulating that the film had to be in cinemas just 14 months later.
Even with some expensive sequences cut – including John Connor sending Kyle Reese back through time in the heart of Skynet HQ, a scene that would ultimately materialise in Terminator Genisys – the script was lengthy and extremely ambitious. Beginning on October 8th, 1990, the shooting schedule was front-loaded with effects shots to give the maximum time for CGI pioneers Industrial Light and Magic to realise the liquid metal T-1000 (Robert Patrick).
To further ease ILM’s burden, every trick in the book was employed to get T-1000 shots in camera wherever possible: quick shots of the villain’s fight with the T-800 (Schwarzenegger) in the steel mill finale were done with a stuntman in a foil suit; a chrome bust of Patrick was hand-raised into frame for a helicopter pilot’s reaction shot; the reforming of the shattered T-1000 was achieved by blowing mercury around with a hair dryer; bullet hits on the character’s torso were represented by spring-loaded silver “flowers” that burst out of a pre-scored shirt on cue.
Stan Winston Studio also constructed a number of cable-controlled puppets to show more extensive damage to the morphing menace. These included “Splash Head”, a bust of Patrick with the head split in two by a shotgun blast, and “Pretzel Man”, the nightmarish result of a grenade hit moments before the T-1000 falls to its doom in the molten steel.
Traditional models and rear projection are used throughout the film. A few instances are all too obvious to a modern audience, but most still look great and some are virtually undetectable. Did you know that the roll-over and crash of the cryo-tanker were shot with miniatures? Or that the T-800 plucking John off his bike in the drainage channel was filmed against a rear projection screen?
Plenty of the action was accomplished without such trickery. The production added a third storey to a disused office building near Silicon Valley, then blew it up with 100 gallons of petrol, to show the demise of Cyberdyne Systems. DP Adam Greenberg lit 5.5 miles of freeway for the car chase, and pilot Chuck Tamburro really did fly the T-1000’s police helicopter under a 20ft underpass.
Chaotic, confusing action scenes are the norm today, but it is notable that T2’s action is thrilling yet never unclear. The film sends somewhat mixed messages though, with its horrific images of nuclear annihilation and the T-800’s morality lessons from John juxtaposed with indulgent violence and a reverence for firearms. “I think of T2 as a violent movie about world peace,” Cameron paradoxically stated. “It’s an action movie about the value of human life.”
Meanwhile, 25 person-years of human life were being devoted by ILM to the T-1000’s metallic morphing abilities. Assistant VFX supervisor Mark Dippé noted: “We were pushing the limits of everything – the amount of disc space we had, the amount of memory we had in the computers, the amount of CPUs we had. Each shot, even though it only lasted about five seconds on the screen, typically would take about eight weeks to complete.”
The team began by painting a 2×2” grid on a near-naked Patrick and shooting reference footage of him walking, before laser-scanning his head at the appropriately-named Cyberware Laboratory. Four separate computer models of the T-1000 were built on Silicon Graphics Iris 4Ds, from an amorphous blob to a fully-detailed chrome replica of Patrick, each with corresponding points in 3D space so that the custom software Model Interp could morph between them.
Other custom applications included Body Sock, a solution to gaps that initially appeared when the models flexed their joints, Polyalloy Shader, which gave the T-1000 its chrome appearance, and Make Sticky, with which images of Patrick were texture-mapped onto the distorting 3D model, as when he melts through a barred gate at the mental hospital.
The film’s legacy in visual effects – for which it won the 1992 Oscar – cannot be understated. A straight line can be drawn from the water tendril in Cameron’s The Abyss, through T2 to Jurassic Park and all the way on to Avatar, with which Cameron again broke the record for the highest-grossing film of all time. The Avatar sequels will undoubtedly push the technology even further, but for many Cameron fans his greatest achievement will always be Terminator 2: Judgment Day, with its perfect blend of huge stunts, traditional effects and groundbreaking CGI.
At Christmas 1978, when Superman: The Movie opened to enthusiastic reviews and record-breaking box office, it was no surprise that a sequel was in the works. What was unusual was that the majority of that sequel had already been filmed, and stranger still, much of it would be re-filmed before Superman II hit cinemas two years later.
Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster’s comic-book icon had made several superhuman leaps to the screen by the 1970s, but Superman: The Movie was the first big-budget feature film. Producer Pierre Spengler and executive producer father/son team Alexander and Ilya Salkind purchased the rights from DC Comics in 1974 and made a deal to finance not one but two Superman movies on the understanding that Warner Bros. would buy the finished products. Salkind senior had unintentionally pioneered back-to-back shooting the previous year when he decided to split The Three Musketeers – originally intended as a three-hour epic – into two shorter films.
After packaging Superman I and II with A-listers Marlon Brando (as Kryptonian patriarch Jor-El) and Gene Hackman (as the villainous Lex Luthor), the producers hired The Omen director Richard Donner to helm the massive production. Donner cast the unknown Christopher Reeve in the title role, while John Williams was signed to compose what would prove to be one of the most famous soundtracks in cinematic history. Like many big genre productions of the time – Star Wars and Alien to name but two – Superman set up camp in England, with cameras rolling for the first time on March 24th, 1977.
“We were shooting scenes from the two films simultaneously, according to production conveniences,” explained creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz in a 2001 documentary. “So when we had Gene Hackman we were shooting scenes from II and scenes from I, or when we were in the Daily Planet we were shooting scenes from both pictures in the Daily Planet, while you were in that set.”
Today – largely thanks to Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings trilogy – we are used to enormous, multi-year productions with crew numbers in four figures, but the scale of the dual Superman shoot was unprecedented at the time, eventually reaching nineteen months in duration. It was originally scheduled for eight.
“Dick [Donner] never in the course of the picture got a budget; he never got a schedule,” claimed Mankiewicz. “He was constantly told that he was over schedule, way over budget, but nobody told him what that budget was or how much he was over that budget.”
Given that overspends were funded by Warner Bros. in return for more distribution rights, Spengler and the Salkinds were watching the value of their huge investment trickle away. So despite Donner’s popularity with the rest of the cast and crew, his relationship with the producers became ever more strained, to the point where they weren’t even on speaking terms.
Ilya Salkind suggested bringing in The Three Musketeers director Richard Lester, who agreed on condition that he would be paid monies still owed to him from that earlier film. By some accounts his role on Superman was that of a mediator between the director and the producers, by others he was a co-producer, second unit director or even a back-up director in case Donner cracked under the pressure of the endless shoot. “Where does this leave… Donner?” asked a newspaper report of the time. “‘Nervous,’ a cast member says.”
Eventually, with the first movie’s release date looming, the filmmakers decided on a change of plan. Superman II would be placed on the back burner in order to prioritise finishing Superman: The Movie – and get it earning money as quickly as possible. At this point, three quarters of the sequel was already in the can, including all scenes featuring Brando and Hackman, both of whom had had contractual wrap dates to meet.
Superman: The Movie was a hit, but Donner would not direct the remainder of its sequel. “They have to want me to do it,” he said of the producers at the time. “It has to be on my terms and I don’t mean financially, I mean control.” Of Spengler specifically, Donner was reported to bluntly state, “If he’s on it – I’m not.”
And indeed Donner was not. The Salkinds had no intention of acceding to his demands. Instead, the former mediator Richard Lester was hired to complete Superman II, and Donner received a telegram telling him that his services were no longer required. “I was ready to get on an airplane and kill,” he recalled years later, “because they were taking my baby away from me.”
Meanwhile Brando was trying (unsuccessfully) to sue the producers over royalties, and demanded a significant cut of the box office gross from the sequel. Rather than pay this, the producers elected to re-film his scenes, replacing Jor-El with Superman’s mother Lara, as played by Susannah York.
It was far from the only reshooting of Superman II footage that took place. Ironically, given the earlier budget concerns, Lester was permitted to redo large chunks of Donner’s material with a rewritten script in order to earn a credit as director under guild rules. Major changes included a new opening sequence on the Eiffel Tower, Lois Lane’s realisation of Clark Kent’s true identity after he trips and falls into a fireplace, and a different ending in which a magic kiss from Clark erases that realisation from her memory.
Some of the reshoots included Lex Luthor material, but Hackman declined to return out of loyalty to Donner; the result is the fairly obvious use of a double in the climactic Fortress of Solitude scene. The deaths of Geoffrey Unsworth and John Barry, plus creative differences between Lester and John Williams, meant that the sequel team also featured a new DP (Robert Paynter), production designer (Peter Murton) and composer (Ken Thorne) respectively, although significant contributions from all of the original HODs remain in the finished film.
Comparing his own directing style with Donner’s, Lester told interviewers, “I think that Donner was emphasising a kind of grandiose myth… There was a type of epic quality which isn’t in my nature… I’m more quirky and I play around with slightly more unexpected silliness.” Indeed his material is characterised by visual gags and a generally less serious approach, which he would continue into Superman III (1983).
Although some of the unused Donner scenes were incorporated into TV screenings over the years, it was not until the 2001 DVD restoration of the first movie that interest began to build in a release for the full, unseen version of the sequel. When Brando’s footage was rediscovered a few years later, it could finally become a reality.
“I don’t think there is [another] film that had so much footage shot and not used,” remarked editor Michael Thau. A vast cataloguing and restoration effort was undertaken to make useable the footage which had been sitting in Technicolor’s London vault for a quarter of a century. Donner and Mankiewicz returned to oversee and approve the process, which used only the minimum of Lester material necessary to tell a complete story, plus footage from Reeve’s and Margot Kidder’s 35mm screen tests.
Released on DVD in 2006, the Donner Cut suffers from the odd cheap visual effect used to plug plot holes, and a familiar turning-back-time ending which was originally scripted for the sequel but moved to the first film at the last minute. However, for fans of Superman: The Movie, this version of Superman II is much closer in tone and ties in much better in story terms too. The Donner Cut is also less silly than the theatrical version, though it must be said that Lester’s humour contributed in no small part to the sequel’s original success.
Whichever version you prefer, 40 years on from its first release, Superman II is still a fun and thrilling adventure with impressive visuals and an utterly believable central performance from the late, great Christopher Reeve.
Last year I blogged about how one of my films, The One That Got Away, fared at film festivals. I promised to do the same with Stop/Eject…. well… better late than never!
To recap The One That Got Away’s results, at a total cost of £71 I entered this three minute puppet film – which cost almost nothing to make – into 36 festivals, choosing mostly those with no entry fee, just middleman costs. It was accepted into just two.
Stop/Eject was a bigger production, though still a DSLR short with an entirely unpaid cast and crew. It was financed by two crowd-funding campaigns, one in preproduction and one in post, which raised around £4,200. Although the second campaign’s budget included money towards festival entries, we later opted to run a third campaign from which we raised another £600 for additional submissions.
I had decided early on that I wanted to go all-out for festivals with Stop/Eject, entering all the top tier ones and then a number of smaller events too. The British Council has a list of ‘key’ festivals (you can apply to the Council for travel funding if your film gets into one of them), and it’s also worth checking out the lists of Bafta- and Oscar-qualifying festivals.
Over a two-year period, producer Sophie Black and I submitted Stop/Eject to 47 festivals, at a total cost of £772. Some submissions were direct, but most were via platforms like Withoutabox, Shortfilmdepot and Reelport. Wherever possible we sent online screeners, but some festivals only accepted physical DVDs or Blu-rays, so the £772 includes postage costs, but not duplication; see my breakdown of the film’s post budget for that info. With the exception of Aspen, we always entered before the Early Bird deadlines so as to pay the lowest fee and have the greatest chances of being programmed, because festivals do not wait until the final deadline to start filling up their screening slots. The most expensive entry was Berlin at £45 (€50), but at the other end of the scale a few festivals, like Torino, were free.
Our first official selection, Raindance, came almost a year after we had started submitting. Full disclosure: our exec producer has worked for Raindance and put in a good word for us. Nonetheless, we were delighted and we hoped that screening at a top tier, Bafta-qualifying festival would bring us to the attention of festival programmers around the world and lead to at least a few invitations and further selections.
But it was not to be. Another year of rejections followed, by which time we had run out of top tier festivals to enter and moved down to smaller ones which had piqued our interest for various reasons, or been recommended to us.
We were eventually selected for six more festivals: Fargo Fantastic Film Festival, Southampton International Film Festival, the Underground Film Festival in Corke, the Short Cinema Festival in Leicester, Worcestershire Film Festival, and Beeston Film Festival. We were nominated for awards at three of these events, and ultimately won Best Drama Short at the Underground Film Festival.
If you’re keen to know all the details, I’ve put together a spreadsheet of all the submissions we made, the costs of entry, middleman fees, and results. Download it here.
Were those seven official selections worth the £772? Effectively we paid for seven screenings at £110 a pop. Or to look at it another way, we paid for seven laurels for our poster at £110 a pop.
Many have posited that the whole film festival circuit is a con, that festivals have become gatekeepers in the way that studios and agents once were – check out this very interesting article. At the very least, I do think the odds of submitting cold to a top tier festival and getting in are astronomically low.
One interesting little side effect was that, thanks to our Raindance selection, we were able to submit Stop/Eject for Bafta’s Short Film Award. We made the long-list for the award, meaning that we were one of fifteen films from which the five nominations were chosen. To be honest I’m a little relieved we didn’t get nominated, because then I might have felt obliged to use the exposure to push my directing career, rather than focusing on the cinematography career which I’m so much happier in now.
Finally, if you haven’t seen Stop/Eject and want to judge its festival-worthiness for yourself, here it is…
Click here to view more Stop/Eject-related posts.
Last week filmmaker Sophie Black‘s crowdfunding campaign smashed through its target. I asked her to share the story of how Songbird, starring X Factor contestant Janet Devlin, raised its funds. And if you’re interested in contributing yourself, the campaign is still running here. Take it away Sophie…
In all honesty, I was dreading the thought of crowdfunding for Songbird. I’ve worked on more fundraising campaigns than I can count (for myself and on behalf of other directors) ever since the early days of the format. Back then, it still seemed unique and exciting, and it was a little easier to reach your goal. Nowadays, everyone and their dog seems to have a funding campaign, raising money for films, inventions, albums… even personal ventures such as holidays and weddings!
The market has become over-saturated, and it’s more likely that your campaign will get a reaction along the lines of ‘not another one!’ rather than the intrigued enthusiasm you’re looking for. I’ve seen a steady decline in the amount of funds I’ve been able to raise over the years; my most recent campaigns, for the films Ashes and Night Owls respectively, were only able to raise between £800 and £2000, and even those amounts came after a hard fight.
However, if you want to get a film made, and you can’t afford to finance it yourself, crowdfunding can be a lifeline. There are very few funding resources for independent films, particularly short ones, and when my traditional funding applications for Songbird all proved unsuccessful, I was left no choice but to face crowdfunding again.
For me, there was one condition to running another campaign; I wanted someone attached with a fanbase. It’s clear by now that the most successful campaigns have someone involved with a good online following – be it the lead actor or even a director with a decent level of buzz around them. Another independent filmmaker I know, Helen Crevel, recently raised over £5000 in a couple of weeks because she had Doctor Who star Colin Baker attached to her film. And I’m sure we all remember how well Zach Braff’s fundraising campaign went, starting a chain of big-name campaigns.
Janet Devlin was a name that came up early on in pre-production for Songbird. Writer Tommy Draper had her in mind during some of the first drafts of the film, and I’d also been a fan of her music for a while, so I was aware of certain similarities between her and the lead character of Songbird, Jennifer. She also has a beautiful singing voice, so we knew that the musical elements of the film would be in safe hands. But, creative reasoning aside, if you had to just look at the casting from a business perspective, Janet has a huge online following across Youtube, Twitter and other social media, and her fans are very vocal and proactive in their support of her work. For all these reasons and more, we are very, very lucky to have Janet on board – and from the moment she announced her involvement in Songbird, the amount of interest in the film doubled – as did the amount of followers on the Triskelle Pictures Facebook page!
Even with those initial seeds sewn, myself and my team still launched the crowdfunding campaign with some trepidation. We had an early boost, as we were able to raise over £1000 within the first 24 hours. By the next day, we were on £1500… and then it stayed around that mark for about a week. An early sense of security was immediately replaced by doubt and fear, as well as emails from backers asking what would happen if we didn’t reach our target. There was always a certain amount we needed to raise in order to make the film, and as we’d set up our Indiegogo campaign to give us whatever funds we raised, even if it was too little, we were putting ourselves at risk of a fall.
Between myself and my core team, we had managed to raise a small amount of the budget ourselves before the campaign started (less than £1000) so we were able to drip-feed this into the campaign on and off in small amounts to keep it appearing active when we needed to. But we tried to keep the momentum going in other ways; as well as the standard social media posts morning, noon and night (the ‘bugging’ element of crowdfunding that no one really likes!), producer Laura Cann contacted relevant online magazines who might be interested in the campaign – fans of independent filmmaking as well as fantasy – and we both posted the campaign in relevant Facebook groups and forums.
We also maintained interest in the film by releasing new videos about it every time we hit a certain benchmark in our funding campaign (£500, £1000, £2500 etc). For added intrigue, we kept the title and content of each video secret until the subsequent one had been released. This was a technique director Neil Oseman and I first used during the post-production funding campaigns for Stop/Eject; it worked well then, and gave our followers some nice insights into the production, so I was keen to do it again. But there was one mistake we made back then that I didn’t learn from; once again, I didn’t get all of the videos ready ahead of the funding campaign. I did the first two/three, thinking we’d have plenty of time before the next target was reached. What happened next scuppered that plan…
Although the first surge of donations was unexpected, the people who donated were, to a degree, ‘accounted for’: they were people we knew, people who had supported our campaigns before, or film fans keen to find out more about a new film. These are your target audience for a standard fundraising campaign, and the type of people you usually expect (or rather, hope) will donate.
But behind the scenes, Janet’s fans had been slowly sharing the campaign page on social media, and the amount of ‘tweets’ and ‘mentions’ had grown steadily. Tommy helped aid this by making a list of people he noticed regularly shared Janet-related news, and he encouraged them by contacting them and thanking them, or by asking them directly to contribute. Janet and her team had also been working hard, not just behind-the-scenes but in effective public posts; as well as sharing her fans’ tweets, Janet posted a photo of herself writing the songs for Songbird, with a link to the campaign in the comments below. This gained more attention than any repetitive sharing of the campaign page alone would do.
Eight days into the Songbird campaign, we were stuck at around the £1500 mark still. I was producing a corporate shoot in the middle of a field that day, with minimal signal, so I didn’t pay much attention to my phone or the campaign. It didn’t seem overly active at the time. By the time I got signal again, we had nearly reached our target. We had suddenly had a surge of big donations – some in the £100s, as we had received on day one, but even a couple of £1000s. Two days later, we had not only reached our goal, but we had surpassed it by £2000. As I write this, the current total is just over £10,000. We asked for £7,500.
Getting more than you ask for isn’t all fun and games; it means that the cut Indiegogo (or whichever hosting site you use) will be much bigger, so you need to prepare yourself for that. Also, unless you double your budget, your new funds won’t be enough to boost every department of production, so you need to be clever about how you spend it. It can be good to think about things you didn’t have before, that you can now afford (most people forget to budget for post-production and festival entry fees in their initial budget. Going over target can enable you to think about that properly for the first time) rather than upgrading elements you already had. The other, final downside is that you need to be careful about where you put the money once it’s ready to be transferred; you can’t have amounts as big as £10,000 moving around your bank account without making sure its accounted for down the line!
But, these minor inconvenient truths aside, my team and I are of course ecstatic about having smashed our goal. We’re beyond-words grateful for all the support we have received so far. We went from being rejected for funding to raising 134% of our budget within a fortnight. And, with the unpredictable nature of crowdfunding, all I can say in conclusion is that it’s down to three things: 1) having a popular name in the lead role, 2) my core crew working damn hard every day, and 3) a good old dollop of flukey good luck on the end. Having Janet’s fan base behind us is a privilege, but I like to think that personally keeping a good online presence and supporting other independent filmmakers over the years might have given us a boost too, even if it was on a smaller scale. Because the first person who donates to your campaign – be them your friend, your colleague or even your Mum – is just as important as the person who takes you over your target. | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 71 | https://www.spectacletheater.com/citizen-unicron/ | en | CITIZEN UNICRON: THE “98% HUSTLE” OF ORSON WELLES – Spectacle Theater | [
"https://www.spectacletheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/spechead-hires.jpg",
"http://www.spectacletheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/citizen-unicron_banner.png",
" http://www.spectacletheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/man-who-saw-tomorrow_banner.png",
"http://www.spectacletheater.com/wp-content/... | [
"https://player.vimeo.com/video/807547253?h=89eac7816e&color=ffffff"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Dan Scanlon"
] | 2023-03-10T12:51:57-05:00 | en | https://www.spectacletheater.com/citizen-unicron/ | “I’ve wasted the greater part of my life looking for money and trying to get along… trying to make my work from this terribly expensive paintbox which is a movie. I’ve spent too much energy on things that have nothing to do with a movie. It’s about two percent moviemaking and ninety-eight percent hustling. It’s no way to spend a life.”
— Orson Welles, Filmmaker
“For a time I considered sparing your wretched little planet, Cybertron. But now… You shall witness… Its DISMEMBERMENT!”
— Unicron, Planet-eater
Orson Welles: “The Boy Wonder” turned enfant terrible of Hollywood. Twice named the greatest director of all time in separate polls conducted by the British Film Institute, and the filmmaker who cinephiles around the world believe to be, if not one the greatest, undoubtedly one of the most consequential of all time. Welles passed away in 1985 at the age of 70, a mere five days after having completed his final performance: The voice of Unicron, the gargantuan planet-eating menace from the 1986 animated Transformers movie. A regrettably undignified end to the career of a man who once revolutionized the film industry and our concept of cinematic auteurship with his landmark debut, CITIZEN KANE.
Despite KANE’s recognition as a groundbreaking achievement, Welles spent most of his career unable to fund projects of his own artistic control, instead finding himself embroiled in constant battles with studios and producers over the budget, tone, casting, and length of his films. By the 1970s, Welles had turned to self-financing his work, choosing to lease out his famously mercurial, larger-than-life personality to any number of talk shows, commercials, television shows, voice-overs, and cheapie productions willing to offer the money needed to keep his productions afloat. Perhaps jaded by his Sisyphean tenure in Hollywood, Welles eventually grew ambivalent about his legacy in the film industry, lamenting the amount of time spent having to finance his work as opposed to actually working, and going so far as to refer to his time as a filmmaker as “about 2% moviemaking and 98% hustling”.
Thankfully, that 2% has lived on through continued repertory screenings, restorations, and even the long-belated completion of Welles’ final feature, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND, in 2018. But we here at Spectacle believe that it’s important to acknowledge not just the man’s completed films, but the painstaking efforts it took for him to get them to that point— The endless parade of B-movie villains, documentary narrators, cameo appearances, and thankless bit parts that collectively comprise his “hustle”. In that spirit, Spectacle Theater is excited to present this series featuring some of our favorite selections from that 98%.
THE MAN WHO SAW TOMORROW
dir. Robert Guenette, 1981
USA. 88 min.
In English.
SATURDAY, APRIL 1 – MIDNIGHT
FRIDAY, APRIL 14 – MIDNIGHT
THURSDAY, APRIL 27 – 10 PM
GET YOUR TICKETS!
In the early 1980s, before the era of Ancient Aliens and Beyond Belief, Orson Welles hosted this HBO “documentary” special about the life of Michel de Nostradame— aka Nostradamus— the 16th-century French apothecary and reputed seer whose “prophecies” “many” “experts” portend to have come true. Whether or not Nostradamus’ hundreds of vaguely provocative four-line poems were truly prophetic of future events (they weren’t) is still up for debate (it isn’t), but one thing he couldn’t predict is that this cable TV oddity would live a healthy second life on the 90s VHS market.
Much of the film’s lasting popularity has to do with Welles, who’s star power greatly outshines the material. Welles truly makes a meal out of his hosting duties, filling his oak-paneled library with a thick haze of cigar smoke as he struts around in an all-black ruffled suit. He alternates between skepticism and suggestion with aplomb, delivering lines like, “Was it coincidence… Or prophecy?”; ”Was he a QUACK… Or was he a true PROPHET?” with such unwarranted bravado that one wonders if he’s actually starting to enjoy himself. This is, after all, the same person who gave us F FOR FAKE, whose influence is felt in Robert Guenette’s dramatizations of Nostradamus’ predictions.
NECROMANCY
dir. Bert I. Gordon, 1972
USA. 83 min.
In English.
MONDAY, APRIL 3 – 10 PM
TUESDAY, APRIL 11 – 10 PM
FRIDAY, APRIL 21 – MIDNIGHT
SATURDAY, APRIL 29 – 10 PM
GET YOUR TICKETS!
From Spectacle favorite Bert I. Gordon (PICTURE MOMMY DEAD) comes this occult thriller about bringing life to the dead and death to the living. Pamela Franklin (THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE) and Michael Ontkean (TWIN PEAK’s Sheriff Truman) star as Lori and Frank, a married couple who relocate to a northern California town following a recent tragedy. Lori is unnerved when she begins to have bizarre visions upon their arrival, and her suspicions only deepen once they meet Frank’s new boss, the mysterious Mr. Cato (Orson Welles), who appears to maintain an outsized influence among the locals.
Filming took place in 1970, shortly after Welles’ return to Hollywood following the collapse of his decades-in-the-works DON QUIXOTE project, and according to Josh Karp’s The Making of The Other Side of the Wind, was one of the first projects that Welles openly acknowledged he had taken mainly for the money. Thankfully for him, there wasn’t much effort required on his part, what with most of his scenes limited to the same few interiors and Mr. Cato’s uncanny ability to communicate entire monologues via fireplace. Yet he still excels in the role, giving off an otherworldly vibe as he coldly delivers lines like, “You’ll forgive me if I sometimes lose myself in my enthusiasm”. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 87 | https://kevinthecritic.com/citizen-kane-psycho-analysis-one-cinemas-eponymous-anti-heroes/ | en | Citizen Kane: A Psycho Analysis of One of Cinema’s Most Eponymous Anti | https://kevinthecritic.com/wp-content/themes/the-411-pro/images/favicon.ico | https://kevinthecritic.com/wp-content/themes/the-411-pro/images/favicon.ico | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Kevin",
"www.facebook.com",
"?fref=ts"
] | 2018-02-07T18:45:59+00:00 | Note: This is a paper that I wrote and presented at the EAPSU Shared Spaces Conference in April of 2017. I thought it would be appropriate for the site as it discusses Citizen Kane (thought to be one of greatest films ever made) in great detail. I would like to personally thank Dr. Christina Rieger for all… Continue Reading | en | https://kevinthecritic.com/wp-content/themes/the-411-pro/images/favicon.ico | kevin the critic | https://kevinthecritic.com/citizen-kane-psycho-analysis-one-cinemas-eponymous-anti-heroes/ | Note: This is a paper that I wrote and presented at the EAPSU Shared Spaces Conference in April of 2017. I thought it would be appropriate for the site as it discusses Citizen Kane (thought to be one of greatest films ever made) in great detail. I would like to personally thank Dr. Christina Rieger for all of her support during the writing of this paper, as well as being a fantastic teacher.
Citizen Kane is the blueprint for power corruption narratives in film. Released in 1941, filmmaker Orson Welles graced the silver screen with his controversial epic detailing the rise and fall of newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane and the effects of his egocentric actions. Despite a mixed reception at release (most notably from real life newsman William Randolph Hearst, who claimed the film was a smearing campaign against him), Citizen Kane is now considered the greatest movie ever made in many critic’s circles. Welles introduced a plethora of filming techniques that are still used today, from fade-outs to montages and the now-popularized en medas res (starting the film in the middle of a story and retelling it via flashbacks). No one can deny the great leaps and bounds made by Welles’ film in terms of its scope and narrative structure, without which many of our modern classics might not exist.
It is surprising, then, that very little psychological analysis has been conducted upon the title character himself. While numerous books detail the making of the movie, the character has not been placed under the current psycho-analytic microscope. Charles Foster Kane has influenced a countless number of film and television characters since his inception, from J. Jonah Jameson in Spider-Man to Howard Beale in Network. Kane was the original mad newsman, so why has no one analyzed him? Through modern psychological analysis, Charles Foster Kane would likely be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, brought on by early childhood trauma and an obsessive desire to leave his mark on the world, no matter what the cost.
Considered the father of psychology, Sigmund Freud would likely be fascinated by Charles Foster Kane. In his 1914 novel On Narcissism, Freud suggested that two types of narcissism exist: Primary and Secondary. On Primary Narcissism, Freud says, “a human being has originally two sexual objects-himself and the woman who nurses him-and in doing so we are postulating a primary narcissism in everyone, which may in some cases manifest itself in a dominating fashion in its object choice.” (Freud 88) Secondary Narcissism
“concerns the libidinal reinvestment of the self that results from withdrawal of certain amounts of libido from the object. This happens especially in cases of disappointment with the object or in mourning for a lost object; further, it occurs as a normal developmental process in secondary identification’ and where some of the libidinal investment of the admired or loved object is then transferred to the self as a consequence of this identification. Finally, it also happens when a person lives up to his ideals.” (79)
Kane often gains his energy and confidence via the obedience of others, and loses it when questioned. Nearly all of his actions fall in line with Freud’s definition of a secondary narcissist, eventually leading to his downfall. Kane’s pathway to destruction contains the losses of various libidinal objects, sadly all due to his narcissistic actions. As awful as these actions are, we cannot place all the blame on Kane. Psychologically speaking, the cause of his downfall begins with the loss of a very important libidinal object: his mother.
In An Introduction to Criticism: Literature/Film/Culture, author Michael Ryan says,
“Citizen Kane is almost a textbook representation of a broken mother-child bond. In the sequence in which Kane is sent away from home by his mother, all the images suggest coldness, distance, and alienation between mother and child. It is snowing, and the mother appears heartless. She is associated with law and the signing of contracts, all highly impersonal activities. There is no warm affection anywhere in the household, and Mr. Thatcher, the banker who has come to take Kane away and to be his guardian, is dressed in funeral black. In one image, the mother sits in the foreground, and Kane as a boy is in the distant background-literally out in the cold. The stage set is designed in such a way that Kane is separated visually from his mother by door and window frames that serve as metaphors for his actual relationship with her and for the impending abandonment of him by her.” (Ryan 57)
Mary wants her son to have the greatest opportunities possible, but he doesn’t understand that. Kane takes his mother’s action to mean that trusting people is a bad idea, that they will ultimately hurt him. Therefore, he will forever hold people at an arm’s length, never truly sure if he can trust them or not, and dropping them the second they present a problem.
We flash forward to see Kane as an idealistic young man eager to provide honest and unbiased news. He is youthful, ambitious, and naive to the realities of the world, but presses forward with his plans for the New York Daily Enquirer. He recognizes the power of the written word in delivering a message to the people and will use it to his greatest advantage, saying: “I’ve got to make the New York Inquirer as important to New York as the gas in {a} light.” (Welles) His closest friend is Leland (Joseph Cotton), who has promised to keep him on the right path. His trust in Leland comes from shared commonalities: they are men with a clear vision for the newspaper. He sees Leland as an ally who agrees with his ambitions and will follow him to the end. Kane unveils a “Declaration of Principles”, guidelines to ensure the paper will remain authentic when delivering the news to the city. However, they serve as a warning of his burgeoning narcissism, as a co-worker points out:
“I’ll provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly. I will also provide.. (A coworker interjects): That’s the second sentence you’ve started with ‘I’… (Kane continues): I will also provide them with a fighting and tireless champion of their rights as citizens and as human beings.” (Welles)
The co-worker’s joking about Kane’s use of the word ‘I’ is extremely important. Kane has written his principles with good intentions, but his word choice places more importance upon himself than the people of the city, thus feeding his narcissistic tendency. Were he not a narcissist, Kane likely would have used “this paper” or “This institution” in place of “I”, but he is, and there it stays. His thirst for power is only emerging here, but will grow over the course of his life to devastating effect.
Kane’s staff is made up of “the best men in the country”, good and honest men who will uphold his journalistic ideals. The office is male-dominated, with Kane being understood as the top dog. He relishes his position over others and flaunts it proudly. a textbook example of secondary narcissism: Kane is projecting his need for control on to the other men, and their following his orders only encourages it.
Kane soon feels his power has become great enough that he can get anything, and anyone, he desires, charming a woman named Emily (Ruth Warrick). She is initially enchanted by his egomania, but becomes gradually less so as he begins to take advantage of her affection. This is highlighted in a classic montage at the dinner table where the gap between the two grows larger and larger as the years go by, symbolized by them growing farther and farther apart at the table, separated by food, trinkets, and newspapers. Kane chose work over Emily, the former being the more important object choice, failing to realize the consequences of his actions both on him and those he cares about. Kane is again displaying intense secondary narcissism with Emily: he is withdrawing from her and becoming more focused on physical objects, searching for another woman to reciprocate his desires when she criticizes him. Emily was initially a pure object of affection because she went along with Kane’s exploits, but her questioning his rise to power causes great strife within their marriage:
Emily: “What do you do in the middle of the night?
Kane: My dear, your only correspondent is The Inquirer
Flash edit:
Emily: Sometimes I think I’d prefer a rival of flesh and blood
Kane: I don’t spend that much time on the newspaper
Emily: It isn’t just the time. It’s what you print, attacking the President.” (Welles)
Kane proceeds into a rant about the President, with the gap between the couple growing farther and farther until they are completely across the table from each other. Emily’s constant “attacking” of Kane’s actions transforms her into a barrier for him, violating the ego-induced “halo effect” he holds over her. Initially, Emily was “perfect” in Kane’s eyes because she supported his actions. However, her criticism is translated to Kane as antagonistic, causing whatever love he may have felt toward her to dwindle rapidly.
Eventually, the paper’s success is no longer enough to satisfy Kane. His thirst for control grows to the point that he begins a mayoral campaign. Like a true politician, Kane pledges change for all, and elimination of city corruption. In likely the film’s most famous shot, Kane stands upon a stage with a giant picture of his head behind him, a not-so-subtle example of his growing ego. The people cheering for Kane at the end of his speech provide him with the acceptance he has long-yearned for, though it is all too brief, as Emily’s continued criticisms lead to his seeking another object-choice to “replace” her.
Kane finds that “replacement” in Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore), a girl he picked up on the street. Like Emily, Susan is attracted to Kane’s power and status, perhaps even more so given her lower economic standing. This gives her even more reason to go along with Kane’s desires, temporarily satisfying his narcissism. Because of this, Kane barely reacts when Emily discovers his indiscretion. Possibly to show thankfulness, Kane later books Susan to star in an opera despite her complete lack of talent and interest in the activity. She tells him straight out that she doesn’t want any part of it, but he promises her worldwide fame, refusing to believe or even acknowledge her desires. He displays both Primary and Secondary Narcissism: Susan has become his object-choice, his obsessive muse, and he will do anything in the world to control her and have his actions supported. Kane likely cares for Susan somewhere deep down, but his NPD takes precedence, making him appear heartless and egomaniacal.
His reasoning behind forcing Susan to sing is debatable: he could be seeking further control over her, he truly believes he sees talent. Everything goes back to his mother’s abandonment in childhood. It has been proven that children need the support of their mothers to establish trust with others and develop positive social relationships with others. If that support is not given, the children will grow up believing the world to be an untrustworthy place where they will have to fight like the devil for everything they get and take examples of friendship as nothing other than manipulation. Any relationships these children establish will last only as long as the other person does not antagonize them in any way, even if the other person in question is completely in the right. Rather than confronting the problem, the individual will deem them “unworthy” and simply seek love and affection from another source, seeing the original friend as an opponent.
The volume of “Psychiatry” in the National Medical Series for Independent Study states, “Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have a grandiose sense of their own importance, but they are also extremely sensitive to criticism. They have little ability to empathize with others. They are more concerned about appearance than substance.” (Scully 266) Kane displays each of these tendencies throughout, both to positive and negative effect. He is unaware of the danger of these tendencies, going into rage when they backfire on him.
As Susan increasingly tells Kane of her displeasure with her singing career, he attempts to save the relationship and keep her love, at one point saying “Whatever I do, I do because I love you.” (Welles). Love is his ultimate rationalization: His mother didn’t love him, so he will attempt to “love” everyone he can. He tried to “love” both his wives by showering them with fame and physical gifts and “love” the city by trying to run an authentic newspaper. However, as Susan Alexander later states, “You never give me anything I really want.” (Welles) Freud states,
“A person may love:- (1) According to the narcissistic type: (a) what he himself is (i.e. himself). (6) what he himself was, (c) what he himself would like to be, (d) someone who was once part of himself.” (90)
Kane does not understand the concept of true love: He believes that Susan’s desires will mirror his own, never thinking to ask her what she wants out of their relationship. This question has never crossed his mind because he was never taught that side of relationships. Kane thinks he is providing Susan with the type of support she needs, unknowingly pushing her farther away.
Interestingly, Kane’s journalistic integrity remains intact at this point. He appears to have greater libidinal reinvestment in maintaining the honesty of the newspaper than for Susan, displayed when he finishes a bad review of her performance for Leland, with whom he hasn’t spoken in many years. We see Leland sleeping at his desk with an unfinished wine bottle on one side. After reading what Leland has of the article, Kane laughs in agreement and decides to finish it, a reminder of the commonalities they once shared. The shot cuts to Leland waking from his desk and seeing the article gone. He goes to a co-worker who says, “Mr. Kane’s just finishing your review just the way you started it. He’s writing a bad notice like you wanted it to be. I guess that’ll show you.” (Welles)
Leland then enters the room to speak with Kane, who promptly fires him. Kane’s expression is one of pain; he does not want to fire his comrade, but does in order to avoid inner conflict between his two loves. The next scene sees an older Leland offering the explanation for his firing to an interviewer: “He {Kane} thought that by finishing that notice he’d show me he was an honest man. He was always trying to prove something.” (Welles) Kane wanted to prove to Leland, and possibly himself, that his journalistic integrity still existed, not considering Susan’s reaction. He even sends Leland a $25,000 check, as he too was an object-choice for Kane (to a lesser extent) and he legitimately cares for him.
Unfortunately, Susan’s reaction only increases Kane’s inner conflict. She is angered by her husband’s paper giving a negative review of her singing (which she has no interest in), and the check. He is now doubly tormented: he fired Leland to avoid personal conflict, despite maintaining journalistic integrity, but has angered his object-choice Susan. He decides to put all his energy into her and leave his journalistic principles behind, personified when he destroys said principles and responds to Susan’s begging him to leave her alone by saying,
“My reasons satisfy me, Susan. You seem unable to understand them. I will not tell them to you again. You will continue with your singing.” (Welles)
Kane is reacting defensively: Susan’s lashing out is seen as an attack on his journalistic instincts, despite her being unaware he wrote the article. He destroys his declaration of principles because they lead to his conflict with Susan, whom he now fears losing. He verbally dominates her to maintain control, forcing her to continue her singing. Unfortunately, Susan attempts suicide to escape from Kane’s thumb, saying,
“I couldn’t make you see how I felt, Charlie. But I couldn’t go through with the singing again. You don’t know what it means to know that people, that the whole audience just doesn’t want you.” (Welles)
Kane finally realizes Susan’s hatred of singing, allowing her to stop so he can maintain her affection. He fears an audience not wanting him more than anything in the world, especially Susan. Unfortunately, his libidinal reinvestment goes into overdrive, filling the house with exotic items and unintentionally forcing Susan into a reclusive lifestyle. He feels that building a literal palace around Susan and showering her with gifts will satisfy her, but to no avail. His fails to understand her true desires leads to yet another argument, with Kane’s desperation for control now overshadowing his love for her. He next sees her packing to leave him, and, in a final attempt to maintain her affection, says, “From now on, everything will be exactly the way you want it to be. Not the way I think you want it, but, your way.” This is the first time Kane has ever offered control to someone else seemingly realizing his wrongdoings, and believes that offering Susan the reigns on their relationship will save it. She considers it momentarily, but he continues with “You can’t do this to me,” showing us that all of his libidinal investment is now in her.
She promptly leaves him, and Kane goes into a rampage, yanking the bedspread, breaking glass, flipping over tables, and destroying anything not bolted down. The outburst is due to a sudden loss of control as well as, in his mind, female abandonment. His mother left him, Emily left him, and now Susan has left him. He pauses to pick up a snow-globe, containing a tiny sled, saying “Rosebud” before walking through the doors blankly to a large crowd of people in his living room. Their adoration means nothing to him; he truly loved Susan, and her loss proves to be the final nail in his narcissistic coffin. He has lost both object-choices in his life, and now has lost the will to locate another. He has all the power in the world, but it means nothing.
“Rosebud” was the word written on a sled he possessed during childhood. The sled is seen at the beginning, but never again. The greatest argument for its inclusion is that Kane, right before death, recognizes the wrongs he’s committed in his life and yearns for his childhood innocence. His only positive childhood memory was playing with that sled, therefore his remembrance of the phrase makes complete sense; he is finally aware that he drove everyone away, and only desires to be at peace, to receive another chance at life. A chance he would never get.
Citizen Kane is a landmark in cinema history. Orson Welles utilized numerous film techniques and storytelling styles that are used and modified to this day. However, while the film’s technical advances should not be brushed over, the psychological complexity of its title character is nothing short of fascinating. Orson Welles created a tragic madman, an individual driven by grand ambition, but consistently thwarted by his own demons. Charles Foster Kane is the original self-absorbed industrialist whose psyche should be studied just as intently as the film around him. Kane embodies narcissism, displaying every symptom provided by modern psychologists as well as Freud’s original definition. In the end, we should admire the technology of Citizen Kane, but be mesmerized by the psychology of the man himself.
Works Cited Page
Citizen Kane Ultimate Collectors Edition. RKO Pictures. 2011. DVD
Ryan, Michael. An Introduction to Criticism: Literature Film Culture. Chichester, West Sussex. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Print.
Sandler, Joseph, Ethel Person, and Peter Fonagy. Freud’s ‘On Narcissism : An Introduction’. London: Karnac Books, 2012. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 28 Nov. 2016. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 24 | https://fogsmoviereviews.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/movies-that-everyone-should-see-citizen-kane/ | en | Movies That Everyone Should See: “Citizen Kane” | [
"https://fogsmoviereviews.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/fogs3.jpg",
"https://fogsmoviereviews.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/citizen-kane3.png?w=560",
"https://fogsmoviereviews.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/orson-welles1.png?w=560",
"https://fogsmoviereviews.wordpress.com/wp-co... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Fogs' Movie Reviews"
] | 2012-03-04T00:00:00 | In 1941, Orson Welles co-wrote, directed and starred in "Citizen Kane". It was his first feature-length film in each regard. Though a box office disappointment at the time of its release, it has since come to be regarded as "The Greatest Film of All Time". Not bad for a rookie. And yet, the same brash, talented… | en | https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/07e5e791c8acfbd4334f886b380df7caf2ff9b494cecb412e6661226cad4d882?s=32 | Fogs' Movie Reviews | https://fogsmoviereviews.wordpress.com/2012/03/04/movies-that-everyone-should-see-citizen-kane/ | In 1941, Orson Welles co-wrote, directed and starred in “Citizen Kane”. It was his first feature-length film in each regard. Though a box office disappointment at the time of its release, it has since come to be regarded as “The Greatest Film of All Time”.
Not bad for a rookie.
And yet, the same brash, talented persona that led him to take bold chances as a filmmaker with “Kane” led him to challenge one of the most powerful men in America via its very creation. It was a legendary act of hubris and daring which would have a profound impact on Welles’ career, and almost undo the film itself.
And thus “Citizen Kane” is not just “The Greatest Film” of all time, but one of the most legendary film stories of all time.
Orson Welles was a boy genius, a wunderkind. His father had made a fortune by inventing a bicycle lamp, which afforded Welles the opportunity for a private school education. However, both of his parents died while he was still young. His mother, when he was 9, his father, when he was 15. Still, his non traditional education, heavy on the creative arts, would serve him well. He was awarded a scholarship to Harvard.
He passed it up.
His forray into show business, at age 20, was putting on a version of “Macbeth”, using funding from a depression era program – The Federal Theatre Project – which was created to create jobs for people in the performing arts. Staged in Harlem with an African-American cast, Welles changed the play’s location from Scotland to Haiti, and replaced the Witchcraft in Shakespeare’s work with Voodoo, leading to the production’s nickname “Voodoo Macbeth”.
“Voodoo Macbeth” was a resounding box office success, in no small part to the controversy surrounding it.
A scant two years later, after a string of other highly succesful plays and the formation of his own stage company (The Mercury Theatre), Welles was given a weekly radio show by CBS. He was the voice of “The Shadow”. His theatre company was also given an hourly radio program to perform the classics. It was, however, their Halloween eve performance of HG Wells’ “War of the Worlds” in 1938 which would become the stuff of legends. Done in mock “News Bulletin” style and without commercial interruption, and timed to put the most sensational elements on when other radio broadcasts would be going to breaks, the “War of the Worlds” broadcast legendarily hoaxed many listeners… causing them to believe that the alien invasion was happening for real.
Hollywood took note.
And so, in 1939, Orson Welles was offered an unprecendented Hollywood contract with RKO pictures. He was given complete creative control, and large (but not unlimited) budgets for a two picture deal.
Wells was 24 years old.
His first Hollywood film was “Citizen Kane”. It was a work of daring. Technically innovative, and controversial in its subject, “Kane” was the bold work of a brash young man who didn’t know fully what he was getting into – in many different ways. Welles attributes the chances the film took and the innovations it made to “ignorance…sheer ignorance. There is no confidence to equal it. It’s only when you know something about a profession that you are timid or careful.”
“Citizen Kane” is a biography of the fictional Charles Foster Kane. Kane was an amalgam of several notable figures, including Welles himself. Yet mainly, he was based on real life Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst.
Opening with the news of his death, the film lays out Kane’s story via flashbacks, as reporters interview those who knew him in an attempt to learn who the man really was, and to learn the meaning of his final word, “Rosebud”. Born into enormous wealth, Kane went into the newspaper business and created a media empire, partially through the practice of “Yellow Journalism” He ran unsuccessfully for political office. He traveled the world, collecting priceless works of art. He had an enormous palatial estate built, complete with the world’s largest private zoo.
Kane has everything that money can buy, almost literally. But the movie makes no bones about the fact that he failed to make genuine human connections. At no shortage of happy hirelings and sycophants, Kane had few genuine friends, and over time, his wealth and ambition separate him from them. He fails to find true love with either of his wives. He dies alone, longing for the days of his youth, when he was still with his family. The innocent days, prior to inheriting his trust.
“Citizen Kane” doesn’t just still hold up today, it’s still a phenomenal movie. Thematically, as long as there’s wealth, power and loneliness, the lessons of Charles Foster Kane will always stay valid. But in tone and in style, the movie still feels very fresh. It was so far ahead of its time that it’s formidable seven decades later.
The movie has garnered an incredible reputation for itself over time, but it’s not simply due to the fact that it’s a great piece of dramatic fiction. “Kane” is also one of the most technically innovative films in movie history, pioneering several techniques that are still in use to this day. Here are some of the most notable technical innovations of “Citizen Kane”.
Deep Focus Deep Focus is a film technique where the foreground, middle-ground and background of a scene are all in focus at the same time. This was prior to the invention of the split-diopter lens, so a variety of techniques were necessary in order to achieve the results. Telephoto lenses were used for closeups, matte shots and overlays were used at points, and super bright lighting in conjunction with wide camera lenses utilizing small apertures. Deep focus was a revolutionary effect, and gave the movie a much different look than other contemporary films.
Low Angle Shots. The film makes use of upward camera angles at several points. This was an unheard of technique at the time, as movie cameras and soundstages weren’t made to accommodate the technique… the “rooms” of soundstages had no ceilings, and cameras weren’t designed to get low in order to get these angles. Welles actually had cloth stretched across soundstages to create fake ceilings, and created “trenches” made for his cameras so he could set them below the scene.
Non-Linear Storytelling. Though not the first film to tell its story in a non chronological manner, “Citizen Kane” is considered a pioneer of the technique. Aside from being told mainly in non sequential flashbacks, the film also makes use of several montages (themselves a compressed chronology). Again, not the first time the technique was used on film, but the first time they were used to such great effect.
Multiple Narrators. Citizen Kane isn’t told from a singular point of view. Several people within the story retell the events of the life of Charles Foster Kane. No less than five different voices are represented in “Kane”, and some with limited reliability. For this reason, the film is considered the introduction of the literary concept of the “Unreliable Narrator” to the world of cinema.
Creative Use of Sound “Kane” was one of the first films to explore the artistic possibilities of film audio. At the time, filmmakers were content to simply have sound effects mirroring events onscreen, sync dialogue with the actors lips, and overlay a score. Welles, coming from radio, realized more was possible, and began mixing sounds in ways that had never been utilized before, using sound effects to reinforce themes and editing sound to film in new ways.
As inventive and creatively rich as the film was, however, Welles hadn’t factored in the fight that William Randolph Hearst would put up over it.
Newspaper Magnate William Randolph Hearst
Welles was no stranger to controversy and criticism. If anything, the “backlash” against his previous works such as “Voodoo Macbeth” and “War of the Worlds” propelled his career forward. It’s safe to assume that at this point in his career he felt as though a touch of controversy was beneficial.
But William Randolph Hearst was an extremely powerful man. Born the son of a mining magnate, Hearst bought his way into the newspaper business and earned his own fortune by expanding his newspaper chain nationally. He made his media empire by appealing to common individuals, not necessarily the well educated. His papers emphasized large print, pictures, and sensationalized stories. They often practiced “Yellow Journalism”, most famously in the sabre rattling lead up to the Spanish-American War.
Hearst’s empire had weakened some during the depression, and the man himself was 76 years old. So perhaps Welles didn’t anticipate the kind of vitriol he could muster. Nonetheless, he still controlled a national media empire, and was one of the wealthiest people alive on the planet. Hearst got hold of Mankiewicz’s unflattering script, and attempted to quash the film prior to its release. He threatened to run blackmail stories and exposes on Hollywood figures – not just related to Welles, “Kane” and RKO – but any Hollywood figure, unless the picture was stopped. Thus a cabal of Studio heads (led by Louis B Mayer) gathered and offered to buy the picture from RKO for the cost of its production plus a reasonable profit – with the intention of never letting it be shown to the public. RKO held a screening and a meeting in New York in order to discuss the situation with the other studios. Welles was in attendance. Legend holds that prior to the screening, Welles gave an impassioned plea… the “Speech of his life”, and that that speech helped save the movie.
RKO didn’t sell.
Hearst wasn’t finished with it, however. Not only did he refuse to advertise for it in his national newspapers, he refused to run ads for other RKO films as well. He threatened individual theatre locations with not running ads for them if their theatres showed the film. As a result. RKO had difficulty rolling the film out to the public. Welles at one point offered to buy the film himself and screen it in tents across the country. That never happened. But perhaps, in the lowest blow of this battle, Hearst ran articles insinuating that Welles was a Communist… to the extent that Hoover’s FBI “opened a file” on him.
All of these factors contributed to “Kane”‘s lack of success at the box office. The film failed to recoup its production budget in its initial run, losing approximately $150,000.
In spite of its failure at the box office, the movie was a critical success upon release. It earned rave reviews and was nominated for nine Academy Awards: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Orson Welles), Best Writing (Original Screenplay), Best Art Direction (Black-and-White), Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Music, and Best Sound Recording. However, due to William Randolph Hearst’s ongoing vendetta against the film, and the resentment many Academy members held towards Welles for his unprecedented creative control and resources (he was a first time filmmaker and a 25-year-old), Welles was actually booed at several points during the ceremony. The film wound up only taking home the award for Best Screenplay, and it may not have even won that if it weren’t for the good Hollywood standing of co-writer Herman J Mankiewicz (many historians consider it a career award).
Neither Welles nor Hearst was the ever same man again. The viciousness that Hearst employed attempting to quash “Kane” gave validity to the speculation that the film was based on him. To this day, the public perception of Hearst is founded on the film. Welles’ career was irreparably damaged. He never held complete creative control over a film again. In fact, the second film in his contract with RKO was taken from his control and finished by the studio. He remained a Hollywood player as an actor and director, but the heights his career might have reached had he not tangled with Hearst are one of the great Hollywood “What ifs?”
“Citizen Kane” would see its day in the sun, however. Due to the timing of its original release (the dawn of WWII), the film never had an initial european run. So it was rereleased in Europe in the late 40s. It was extremely well received. RKO was also one of the first film studios to sell their film catalogue for television broadcast, and subsequently, “Kane” was one of the early wave of films to be broadcast on TV in the mid 1950s. These re-release runs helped the film begin its climb to the top of filmdom.
It stands now as one of the most critically acclaimed films of all time.
“Citizen Kane” has famously been awarded the #1 spot on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movies, and held onto its crown ten years later with the release of the 100 Years… 100 Movies 10th Anniversary Edition. It has also held the top spot through each of the past five Sight & Sound (The official magazine of the BFI) polls of the Greatest Films of All Time. A feat made more impressive when the fact that the polls are only done once a decade. Meaning Citizen Kane has held their title for over 50 years (a new one should be released this year). But lest I lead people to believe the film is only revered in academic circles, it also cracks the top 40 on IMDb’s Top 250 (#38), a much more populist list.
It’s a movie with an impeccable pedigree. It has been decreed “The Greatest Film of all Time” by the most significant film organizations in existence. It was filmed at the onset of World War II, yet still remains relevant, because of its timeless qualities and remarkable craftsmanship.
It’s definitely a “Movie That Everyone Should See”. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 48 | https://www.sllf.org/from-citizen-kane-to-citizen-you/ | en | From Citizen Kane to Citizen You | [
"https://www.sllf.org/wp-content/uploads/sllf-logo-300-alt.png",
"https://sllf.org/wp-content/uploads/sllf-logo-white-footer-130.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"SLLF"
] | 2014-11-24T22:00:03+00:00 | By Thomas H. Little, Ph.D.
A few weeks ago, I was visiting Austin, Texas to prepare for our upcoming New Speakers Orientation (January 22-24, 2015). It was one of those rare trips where I am not traveling with family, friends or staff so, while the days were full of meetings, the evenings were free. I got | en | The State Legislative Leaders Foundation | https://www.sllf.org/from-citizen-kane-to-citizen-you/ | By Thomas H. Little, Ph.D.
A few weeks ago, I was visiting Austin, Texas to prepare for our upcoming New Speakers Orientation (January 22-24, 2015). It was one of those rare trips where I am not traveling with family, friends or staff so, while the days were full of meetings, the evenings were free. I got to spend one evening combining two of my favorite things – grand theatres and classic movies. I enjoyed “Citizen Kane” (1941), a film many consider the best American film of all time, in the historic Paramount Theatre – what a treat. (With apologies to my lovely wife, it was great to be alone for this one!)
As I watched this decades-old classic about the political rise and fall of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Wells), I was struck by how much politics has changed and yet how little it has changed. On the one hand, I noted the dominance of print media, and especially print media controlled by one or two moguls. Newspapers, and to a lesser extent, radio and news reels, determined not only what issues people thought about, but how to think about them. Publishers filtered the political news of the day through their own biased lenses and delivered it to the masses. Today, with the advent of “new media,” political leaders can and do bypass the “mass media” to reach the public in ways unimaginable to Charles Foster Kane and his friend Jed Leland (Joseph Cotton).
And yet, despite the dramatic changes in technology, I was struck more by what has not changed since the movie was made. Just like many of our leaders today, Charles Foster Kane was undone by his own appetites – his desire to be loved, admired, accepted and needed. How many times do we read that story today in blogs, tweets and news feeds? Further, we see that politics then, as now, is often a dirty business where rumors are accepted as fact and mere innuendo can bring down a political career. Finally, I was struck, as I am every time I watch this great film, that Kane, who began with the noblest of intentions eventually becomes motivated not by those intentions, but by a desire to win and possess power – over things, people and governments.
Early in the film, upon buying a second-rate newspaper, Kane publishes his “Declaration of Principles,” promising “I will provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly. I will also provide them with a fighting and tireless champion of their rights as citizens and as human beings.” By the end of the movie, the “Declaration of Principles,” ends up in small pieces in the fireplace, along with the grandiose dreams of social change of its author. All too often, I see similar things happen to leaders of today – their noble causes are replaced by a desire simply to maintain the leadership post or keep the office, with little thought to the reasons they sought that post or office in the first place.
In the next six months, SLLF will offer two programs that I believe will help keep today’s leaders from ending up on the wood pile of history as Kane’s cherished (spoiler alert) sled. This fall (October 9-11, 2014) SLLF and the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics will host a meeting on Ethics and Leadership in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. In this meeting, we will discuss why leaders (both public and private) falter and steps that can be taken to prevent such lapses and create a culture where ethical leadership is expected and rewarded. Then, next spring (March 19-21, 2015), SLLF is hosting a program at the Reagan Library on leaving a positive leadership legacy. In that program, we will explore how you can not only maintain the lofty goals you set for yourself, but develop strategies for achieving them and leaving your chamber, state and country better than you found it.
I hope many of our friends in the legislative and corporate worlds will be able to join us for one or both of these programs and maybe we can help you implement your own “Declaration of Principles.” | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 12 | https://culture.fandom.com/wiki/Citizen_Kane | en | Citizen Kane | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/culture/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20210713151654 | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/culture/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20210713151654 | [
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/culture/images/e/e6/Site-logo.png/revision/latest?cb=20210713151654",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/ff185fe4-8356-4b6b-ad48-621b95a82a1d",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/f3fc9271-3d5e-4c73-9afc-e6a9f6154ff1",
"https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/464fc70a-5090-490b-b47... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Culture Wikia"
] | 2024-08-29T17:42:07+00:00 | Page Module:Infobox/styles.css has no content. Citizen Kane is a 1941 American mystery drama film by Orson Welles, its producer, co-screenwriter, director and star. The picture was Welles's first feature film. Nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories, it won an Academy Award for Best... | en | https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/culture/images/4/4a/Site-favicon.ico/revision/latest?cb=20210713151656 | Culture Wikia | https://culture.fandom.com/wiki/Citizen_Kane | Page Module:Infobox/styles.css has no content.
Citizen KanePoster showing two women in the bottom left of the picture looking up towards a man in a white suit in the top right of the picture. "Everybody's talking about it. It's terrific!" appears in the top right of the picture. "Orson Welles" appears in block letters between the women and the man in the white suit. "Citizen Kane" appears in red and yellow block letters tipped 60° to the right. The remaining credits are listed in fine print in the bottom right.Directed byOrson WellesScreenplay by
Herman J. Mankiewicz
Orson Welles
Produced byOrson WellesStarring
Orson Welles
Joseph Cotten
Dorothy Comingore
Everett Sloane
Ray Collins
George Coulouris
Agnes Moorehead
Paul Stewart
Ruth Warrick
Erskine Sanford
William Alland
CinematographyGregg TolandEdited byRobert WiseMusic byBernard Herrmann
Production
company
Mercury Productions
Distributed byRKO Radio Pictures
Release date
May 1, 1941 ( ) (Palace Theatre)
September 5, 1941 ( ) (United States)
Running time
119 minutes[1]CountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishBudget$839,727[2]Box office$1.6 million[3]
Citizen Kane is a 1941 American mystery drama film by Orson Welles, its producer, co-screenwriter, director and star. The picture was Welles's first feature film. Nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories, it won an Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles. Considered by many critics, filmmakers, and fans to be the greatest film of all time, Citizen Kane was voted as such in five consecutive British Film Institute Sight & Sound polls of critics, until it was displaced by Vertigo in the 2012 poll. It topped the American Film Institute's 100 Years ... 100 Movies list in 1998, as well as its 2007 update. Citizen Kane is particularly praised for its cinematography, music, and narrative structure, which have been considered innovative and precedent-setting.
The quasi-biographical film examines the life and legacy of Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles, a character based in part upon the American newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, Chicago tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick, and aspects of Welles's own life. Upon its release, Hearst prohibited mention of the film in any of his newspapers. Kane's career in the publishing world is born of idealistic social service, but gradually evolves into a ruthless pursuit of power. Narrated principally through flashbacks, the story is told through the research of a newsreel reporter seeking to solve the mystery of the newspaper magnate's dying word: "Rosebud."
After the Broadway successes of Welles's Mercury Theatre and the controversial 1938 radio broadcast "The War of the Worlds" on The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was courted by Hollywood. He signed a contract with RKO Pictures in 1939. Unusually for an untried director, he was given the freedom to develop his own story, to use his own cast and crew, and to have final cut privilege. Following two abortive attempts to get a project off the ground, he wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane, collaborating on the effort with Herman Mankiewicz. Principal photography took place in 1940 and the film received its American release in 1941.
While a critical success, Citizen Kane failed to recoup its costs at the box office. The film faded from view after its release but was subsequently returned to the public's attention when it was praised by such French critics as André Bazin and given an American revival in 1956. The film was released on Blu-ray on September 13, 2011, for a special 70th anniversary edition.
Page Template:TOC limit/styles.css has no content.
Plot[]
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
In a mansion in Xanadu, a vast palatial estate in Florida, the elderly Charles Foster Kane is on his deathbed. Holding a snow globe, he utters a word, "Rosebud", and dies; the globe slips from his hand and smashes on the floor. A newsreel obituary tells the life story of Kane, an enormously wealthy newspaper publisher. Kane's death becomes sensational news around the world, and the newsreel's producer tasks reporter Jerry Thompson with discovering the meaning of "Rosebud".
Thompson sets out to interview Kane's friends and associates. He approaches Kane's second wife, Susan Alexander Kane, now an alcoholic who runs her own nightclub, but she refuses to talk to him. Thompson goes to the private archive of the late banker Walter Parks Thatcher. Through Thatcher's written memoirs, Thompson learns that Kane's childhood began in poverty in Colorado.
In 1871, after a gold mine was discovered on her property, Kane's mother Mary Kane sends Charles away to live with Thatcher so that he would be properly educated. While Thatcher and Charles' parents discuss arrangements inside, the young Kane plays happily with a sled in the snow outside his parents' boarding-house and protests being sent to live with Thatcher.
Years later, after gaining full control over his trust fund at the age of 25, Kane enters the newspaper business and embarks on a career of yellow journalism. He takes control of the New York Inquirer and starts publishing scandalous articles that attack Thatcher's business interests. After the stock market crash in 1929, Kane is forced to sell controlling interest of his newspaper empire to Thatcher.
Back in the present, Thompson interviews Kane's personal business manager, Mr. Bernstein. Bernstein recalls how Kane hired the best journalists available to build the Inquirer's circulation. Kane rose to power by successfully manipulating public opinion regarding the Spanish–American War and marrying Emily Norton, the niece of a President of the United States.
Thompson interviews Kane's estranged best friend, Jedediah Leland, in a retirement home. Leland recalls how Kane's marriage to Emily disintegrates more and more over the years, and he begins an affair with amateur singer Susan Alexander while he is running for Governor of New York. Both his wife and his political opponent discover the affair and the public scandal ends his political career. Kane marries Susan and forces her into a humiliating operatic career for which she has neither the talent nor the ambition.
Back in the present, Susan now consents to an interview with Thompson, and recalls her failed opera career. Kane finally allows her to abandon her singing career after she attempts suicide. After years spent dominated by Kane and living in isolation at Xanadu, Susan leaves Kane. Kane's butler Raymond recounts that, after Susan leaves him, Kane begins violently destroying the contents of her bedroom. He suddenly calms down when he sees a snow globe and says, "Rosebud."
Back at Xanadu, Kane's belongings are being cataloged or discarded. Thompson concludes that he is unable to solve the mystery and that the meaning of Kane's last word will forever remain an enigma. As the film ends, the camera reveals that "Rosebud" is the trade name of the sled on which the eight-year-old Kane was playing on the day that he was taken from his home in Colorado. Thought to be junk by Xanadu's staff, the sled is burned in a furnace.
Cast[]
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
The beginning of the film's ending credits state that "Most of the principal actors in Citizen Kane are new to motion pictures. The Mercury Theatre is proud to introduce them."[4] The cast is listed in the following order:
Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland, Kane's best friend and a reporter for The Inquirer. Cotten also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[5]
Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane, Kane's mistress and second wife.[5]
Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane, Kane's mother.[5]
Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane, Kane's first wife.[5]
Ray Collins as Jim W. Gettys, Kane's political rival and the incumbent governor of New York.[5]
Erskine Sanford as Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer. Sanford also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[5]
Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein, Kane's friend and employee at The Inquirer.[5]
William Alland as Jerry Thompson, a reporter for News on the March. Alland also voices the narrator of the News on the March newsreel.[5]
Paul Stewart as Raymond, Kane's butler.[5]
George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker who becomes Kane's legal guardian.[5]
Fortunio Bonanova as Signor Matiste, vocal coach of Susan Alexander Kane.[5]
Gus Schilling as John, headwaiter at the El Rancho nightclub. Schilling also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[5]
Philip Van Zandt as Mr. Rawlston, News on the March producer.[5]
Georgia Backus as Bertha Anderson, attendant at the library of Walter Parks Thatcher.[5]
Harry Shannon as Jim Kane, Kane's father.[5]
Sonny Bupp as Charles Foster Kane III, Kane's son.[5]
Buddy Swan as Charles Foster Kane, age eight.[5]
Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper publisher.[5]
Additionally, Charles Bennett appears as the entertainer at the head of the chorus line in the Inquirer party sequence,[6]:40–41 and cinematographer Gregg Toland makes a cameo appearance as an interviewer depicted in part of the News on the March newsreel. Actor Alan Ladd makes a cameo appearance as a reporter smoking a pipe at the end of the film.[7]
Pre-production[]
Development[]
Hollywood had shown interest in Welles as early as 1936.[8]:40 He turned down three scripts sent to him by Warner Bros. In 1937, he declined offers from David O. Selznick, who asked him to head his film company's story department, and William Wyler, who wanted him for a supporting role in Wuthering Heights. "Although the possibility of making huge amounts of money in Hollywood greatly attracted him," wrote biographer Frank Brady, "he was still totally, hopelessly, insanely in love with the theater, and it is there that he had every intention of remaining to make his mark."[9]:118–119, 130
Following "The War of the Worlds" broadcast of his CBS radio series The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was lured to Hollywood with a remarkable contract.[10]:1–2, 153 RKO Pictures studio head George J. Schaefer wanted to work with Welles after the notorious broadcast, believing that Welles had a gift for attracting mass attention.[11]:170 RKO was also uncharacteristically profitable and was entering into a series of independent production contracts that would add more artistically prestigious films to its roster.[10]:1–2, 153 Throughout the spring and early summer of 1939, Schaefer constantly tried to lure the reluctant Welles to Hollywood.[11]:170 Welles was in financial trouble after failure of his plays Five Kings and The Green Goddess. At first he simply wanted to spend three months in Hollywood and earn enough money to pay his debts and fund his next theatrical season.[11]:170 Welles first arrived on July 20, 1939[11]:168 and on his first tour, he called the movie studio "the greatest electric train set a boy ever had".[11]:174
Welles signed his contract with RKO on August 21. This legendary contract stipulated that Welles would act in, direct, produce and write two films. Mercury would get $100,000 for the first film by January 1, 1940, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000, and $125,000 for a second film by January 1, 1941, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000. The most controversial aspect of the contract was granting Welles complete artistic control of the two films so long as RKO approved both project's stories[11]:169 and so long as the budget did not exceed $500,000.[10]:1–2, 153 RKO executives would not be allowed to see any footage until Welles chose to show it to them, and no cuts could be made to either film without Welles's approval.[11]:169 Welles was allowed to develop the story without interference, select his own cast and crew, and have the right of final cut. Granting final cut privilege was unprecedented for a studio since it placed artistic considerations over financial investment. The contract was deeply resented in the film industry, and the Hollywood press took every opportunity to mock RKO and Welles. Schaefer remained a great supporter[10]:1–2, 153 and saw the unprecedented contract as good publicity.[11]:170 Film scholar Robert L. Carringer wrote: "The simple fact seems to be that Schaefer believed Welles was going to pull off something really big almost as much as Welles did himself."[10]:1–2, 153
Welles spent the first five months of his RKO contract trying to get his first project going, without success. "They are laying bets over on the RKO lot that the Orson Welles deal will end up without Orson ever doing a picture there," wrote The Hollywood Reporter.[10]:15 It was agreed that Welles would film Heart of Darkness, previously adapted for The Mercury Theatre on the Air, which would be presented entirely through a first-person camera. After elaborate pre-production and a day of test shooting with a hand-held camera—unheard of at the time—the project never reached production because Welles was unable to trim $50,000 from its budget.[lower-alpha 1][lower-alpha 2][12]:30–31 Schaefer told Welles that the $500,000 budget could not be exceeded; revenue was declining sharply in Europe by the fall of 1939.[9]:215–216
He then started work on the idea that became Citizen Kane. Knowing the script would take time to prepare, Welles suggested to RKO that while that was being done—"so the year wouldn't be lost"—he make a humorous political thriller. Welles proposed The Smiler with a Knife, from a novel by Cecil Day-Lewis.[12]:33–34 When that project stalled in December 1939, Welles began brainstorming other story ideas with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who had been writing Mercury radio scripts. "Arguing, inventing, discarding, these two powerful, headstrong, dazzlingly articulate personalities thrashed toward Kane", wrote biographer Richard Meryman.[13]:245–246
Screenplay[]
Main article: Screenplay for Citizen Kane
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
One of the long-standing controversies about Citizen Kane has been the authorship of the screenplay.[13]:237 Welles conceived the project with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who was writing radio plays for Welles's CBS Radio series, The Campbell Playhouse.[10]:16 Mankiewicz based the original outline on the life of William Randolph Hearst, whom he knew socially and came to hate after being exiled from Hearst's circle.[13]:231
In February 1940 Welles supplied Mankiewicz with 300 pages of notes and put him under contract to write the first draft screenplay under the supervision of John Houseman, Welles's former partner in the Mercury Theatre. Welles later explained, "I left him on his own finally, because we'd started to waste too much time haggling. So, after mutual agreements on storyline and character, Mank went off with Houseman and did his version, while I stayed in Hollywood and wrote mine."[12]:54 Taking these drafts, Welles drastically condensed and rearranged them, then added scenes of his own. The industry accused Welles of underplaying Mankiewicz's contribution to the script, but Welles countered the attacks by saying, "At the end, naturally, I was the one making the picture, after all—who had to make the decisions. I used what I wanted of Mank's and, rightly or wrongly, kept what I liked of my own."[12]:54
The terms of the contract stated that Mankiewicz was to receive no credit for his work, as he was hired as a script doctor.[14]:487 Before he signed the contract Mankiewicz was particularly advised by his agents that all credit for his work belonged to Welles and the Mercury Theatre, the "author and creator".[9]:236–237 As the film neared release, however, Mankiewicz began threatening Welles to get credit for the film—including threats to place full-page ads in trade papers and to get his friend Ben Hecht to write an exposé for The Saturday Evening Post. Mankiewicz also threatened to go to the Screen Writers Guild and claim full credit for writing the entire script by himself.[11]:204
After lodging a protest with the Screen Writers Guild, Mankiewicz withdrew it, then vacillated. The question was resolved in January 1941 when the studio, RKO Pictures, awarded Mankiewicz credit. The guild credit form listed Welles first, Mankiewicz second. Welles's assistant Richard Wilson said that the person who circled Mankiewicz's name in pencil, then drew an arrow that put it in first place, was Welles. The official credit reads, "Screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles".[13]:264–265 Mankiewicz's rancor toward Welles grew over the remaining 12 years of his life.[15]:498
Questions over the authorship of the Citizen Kane screenplay were revived in 1971 by influential film critic Pauline Kael, whose controversial 50,000-word essay "Raising Kane" was commissioned as an introduction to the shooting script in The Citizen Kane Book,[12]:494 published in October 1971.[16] The book-length essay first appeared in February 1971, in two consecutive issues of The New Yorker magazine.[12]:494[17] In the ensuing controversy Welles was defended by colleagues, critics, biographers and scholars, but his reputation was damaged by its charges.[15]:394 The essay was later discredited and Kael's own scholarship was called into question.[18][19][20]
Any question of authorship was resolved with Carringer's 1978 essay, "The Scripts of Citizen Kane".[21][lower-alpha 3] Carringer studied the collection of script records—"almost a day-to-day record of the history of the scripting"—that was then still intact at RKO. He reviewed all seven drafts and concluded that "the full evidence reveals that Welles's contribution to the Citizen Kane script was not only substantial but definitive."[21]:80
Sources[]
Main article: Sources for Citizen Kane
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
Welles never confirmed a principal source for the character of Charles Foster Kane. Houseman wrote that Kane is a synthesis of different personalities, with Hearst's life used as the main source. Some events and details were invented,[23]:444 and Houseman and Mankiewicz also "grafted anecdotes from other giants of journalism, including Pulitzer, Northcliffe and Mank's first boss, Herbert Bayard Swope."[23]:444 Welles said, "Mr. Hearst was quite a bit like Kane, although Kane isn't really founded on Hearst in particular, many people sat for it so to speak".[24]:78 He specifically acknowledged that aspects of Kane were drawn from the lives of two business tycoons familiar from his youth in Chicago—Samuel Insull and Harold Fowler McCormick.[lower-alpha 4][12]:49
The character of Jedediah Leland was based on drama critic Ashton Stevens, George Stevens's uncle and Welles's close boyhood friend.[12]:66 Some detail came from Mankiewicz's own experience as a drama critic in New York.[13]:77–78
The assumption that the character of Susan Alexander Kane was based on Marion Davies was a major reason Hearst tried to destroy Citizen Kane.[25][lower-alpha 5] Welles denied that the character was based on Davies,[27] whom he called "an extraordinary woman—nothing like the character Dorothy Comingore played in the movie."[12]:49 He cited Insull's building of the Chicago Opera House, and McCormick's lavish promotion of the opera career of his second wife, Ganna Walska, as direct influences on the screenplay.[12]:49
The character of political boss Jim W. Gettys is based on Charles F. Murphy, a leader in New York City's infamous Tammany Hall political machine.[17]:61
Welles credited "Rosebud" to Mankiewicz.[12]:53 Biographer Richard Meryman wrote that the symbol of Mankiewicz's own damaged childhood was a treasured bicycle, stolen while he visited the public library and not replaced by his family as punishment. He regarded it as the prototype of Charles Foster Kane's sled.[13]:300 In his 2015 Welles biography, Patrick McGilligan reported that Mankiewicz himself stated that the word "Rosebud" was taken from the name of a famous racehorse, Old Rosebud. Mankiewicz had a bet on the horse in the 1914 Kentucky Derby, which he won, and McGilligan wrote that "Old Rosebud symbolized his lost youth, and the break with his family". In testimony for the Lundberg suit, Mankiewicz said, "I had undergone psycho-analysis, and Rosebud, under circumstances slightly resembling the circumstances in [Citizen Kane], played a prominent part."[28] Other modern claims that the term was a nickname Hearst used for Davies' clitoris were rejected by Houseman[29] and dismissed by Brady.[9]:287
The News on the March sequence that begins the film satirizes the journalistic style of The March of Time, the news documentary and dramatization series presented in movie theaters by Time Inc.[30][31] From 1935 to 1938[32]:47 Welles was a member of the uncredited company of actors that presented the original radio version.[33]:77
Houseman claimed that banker Walter P. Thatcher was loosely based on J. P. Morgan.[34]:55 Bernstein was named for Dr. Maurice Bernstein, appointed Welles's guardian;[12]:65–66 Sloane's portrayal was said to be based on Bernard Herrmann.[35] Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer, was named for actor Jack Carter.[36]:155
Production[]
Casting[]
Citizen Kane was a rare film in that its principal roles were played by actors new to motion pictures. Ten were billed as Mercury Actors, members of the skilled repertory company assembled by Welles for the stage and radio performances of the Mercury Theatre, an independent theater company he founded with Houseman in 1937.[9]:119–120[37] "He loved to use the Mercury players," wrote biographer Charles Higham, "and consequently he launched several of them on movie careers."[36]:155
The film represents the feature film debuts of William Alland, Ray Collins, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane, Paul Stewart, and Welles himself.[5] Despite never having appeared in feature films, some of the cast members were already well known to the public. Cotten had recently become a Broadway star in the hit play The Philadelphia Story with Katharine Hepburn[11]:187 and Sloane was well known for his role on the radio show The Goldbergs.[11]:187 [lower-alpha 6] Mercury actor George Coulouris was a star of the stage in New York and London.[37]
Not all of the cast came from the Mercury Players. Welles cast Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane. Comingore had never appeared in a film and was a discovery of Charlie Chaplin.[11]:188 Chaplin recommended Comingore to Welles,[38]:170 who then met Comingore at a party in Los Angeles and immediately cast her.[39]:44
Welles had met stage actress Ruth Warrick while visiting New York on a break from Hollywood and remembered her as a good fit for Emily Norton Kane,[11]:188 later saying that she looked the part.[38]:169 Warrick told Carringer that she was struck by the extraordinary resemblance between herself and Welles's mother when she saw a photograph of Beatrice Ives Welles. She characterized her own personal relationship with Welles as motherly.[40]:14
"He trained us for films at the same time that he was training himself," recalled Agnes Moorehead. "Orson believed in good acting, and he realized that rehearsals were needed to get the most from his actors. That was something new in Hollywood: nobody seemed interested in bringing in a group to rehearse before scenes were shot. But Orson knew it was necessary, and we rehearsed every sequence before it was shot."[41]:9
When The March of Time narrator Westbrook Van Voorhis asked for $25,000 to narrate the News on the March sequence, Alland demonstrated his ability to imitate Van Voorhis and Welles cast him.[42]
Welles later said that casting character actor Gino Corrado in the small part of the waiter at the El Rancho broke his heart. Corrado had appeared in many Hollywood films, often as a waiter, and Welles wanted all of the actors to be new to films.[38]:171
Other uncredited roles went to Thomas A. Curran as Teddy Roosevelt in the faux newsreel; Richard Baer as Hillman, a man at Madison Square Garden, and a man in the News on the March screening room; and Alan Ladd, Arthur O'Connell and Louise Currie as reporters at Xanadu.[5]
When Kathryn Trosper Popper died on March 6, 2016, at the age of 100 she was reported to be the last surviving actor to appear in Citizen Kane.[43] Jean Forward, a soprano who dubbed the singing voice of Susan Alexander, was the last surviving performer from the film before her death in 2016.[44] Warrick was the last surviving member of the principal cast at the time of her death in 2005. Sonny Bupp, who played Kane's young son, was the last surviving credited cast member of Citizen Kane when he died in 2007.[45]
Filming[]
Production advisor Miriam Geiger quickly compiled a handmade film textbook for Welles, a practical reference book of film techniques that he studied carefully. He then taught himself filmmaking by matching its visual vocabulary to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which he ordered from the Museum of Modern Art,[11]:173 and films by Frank Capra, René Clair, Fritz Lang, King Vidor[46]:1172:1171 and Jean Renoir.[9]:209 The one film he genuinely studied was John Ford's Stagecoach,[12]:29 which he watched 40 times.[47] "As it turned out, the first day I ever walked onto a set was my first day as a director," Welles said. "I'd learned whatever I knew in the projection room—from Ford. After dinner every night for about a month, I'd run Stagecoach, often with some different technician or department head from the studio, and ask questions. 'How was this done?' 'Why was this done?' It was like going to school."[12]:29
Welles's cinematographer for the film was Gregg Toland, described by Welles as "just then, the number-one cameraman in the world." To Welles's astonishment, Toland visited him at his office and said, "I want you to use me on your picture." He had seen some of the Mercury stage productions (including Caesar[15]:66) and said he wanted to work with someone who had never made a movie.[12]:59 RKO hired Toland on loan from Samuel Goldwyn Productions[34]:10 in the first week of June 1940.[10]:40
"And he never tried to impress us that he was doing any miracles," Welles recalled. "I was calling for things only a beginner would have been ignorant enough to think anybody could ever do, and there he was, doing them."[12]:60 Toland later explained that he wanted to work with Welles because he anticipated the first time director's inexperience and reputation for audacious experimentation in the theater would allow the cinematographer to try new and innovative camera techniques that typical Hollywood films would never have allowed him to do.[11]:186 Unaware of filmmaking protocol, Welles adjusted the lights on set as he was accustomed to doing in the theater; Toland quietly re-balanced them, and was angry when one of the crew informed Welles that he was infringing on Toland's responsibilities.[48]:5:33–6:06 During the first few weeks of June, Welles had lengthy discussions about the film with Toland and art director Perry Ferguson in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening he worked with actors and revised the script.[10]:69
On June 29, 1940—a Saturday morning when few inquisitive studio executives would be around—Welles began filming Citizen Kane.[10]:69[15]:107 After the disappointment of having Heart of Darkness cancelled,[12]:30–31 Welles followed Ferguson's suggestion[lower-alpha 7][12]:57 and deceived RKO into believing that he was simply shooting camera tests. "But we were shooting the picture," Welles said, "because we wanted to get started and be already into it before anybody knew about it."[12]:57
At the time RKO executives were pressuring him to agree to direct a film called The Men from Mars, to capitalize on "The War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. Welles said that he would consider making the project but wanted to make a different film first. At this time he did not inform them that he had already begun filming Citizen Kane.[11]:186
The early footage was called "Orson Welles Tests" on all paperwork.[10]:69 The first "test" shot was the News on the March projection room scene, economically filmed in a real studio projection room in darkness that masked many actors who appeared in other roles later in the film.[10]:69[12]:77–78[lower-alpha 8] "At $809 Orson did run substantially beyond the test budget of $528—to create one of the most famous scenes in movie history," wrote Barton Whaley.[15]:107
The next scenes were the El Rancho nightclub scenes and the scene in which Susan attempts suicide.[lower-alpha 9][10]:69 Welles later said that the nightclub set was available after another film had wrapped and that filming took 10 to 12 days to complete. For these scenes Welles had Comingore's throat sprayed with chemicals to give her voice a harsh, raspy tone.[38]:170–171 Other scenes shot in secret included those in which Thompson interviews Leland and Bernstein, which were also shot on sets built for other films.[42]
During production, the film was referred to as RKO 281. Most of the filming took place in what is now Stage 19 on the Paramount Pictures lot in Hollywood.[50] There was some location filming at Balboa Park in San Diego and the San Diego Zoo.[51]
In the end of July, RKO approved the film and Welles was allowed to officially begin shooting, despite having already been filming "tests" for several weeks. Welles leaked stories to newspaper reporters that the tests had been so good that there was no need to re-shoot them. The first official scene to be shot was the breakfast montage sequence between Kane and his first wife Emily. To strategically save money and appease the RKO executives who opposed him, Welles rehearsed scenes extensively before actually shooting and filmed very few takes of each shot set-up.[11]:193 Welles never shot master shots for any scene after Toland told him that Ford never shot them.[38]:169 To appease the increasingly curious press, Welles threw a cocktail party for selected reporters, promising that they could watch a scene being filmed. When the journalists arrived Welles told them they had "just finished" shooting for the day but still had the party.[11]:193 Welles told the press that he was ahead of schedule (without factoring in the month of "test shooting"), thus discrediting claims that after a year in Hollywood without making a film he was a failure in the film industry.[11]:194
Welles usually worked 16 to 18 hours a day on the film. He often began work at 4 a.m. since the special effects make-up used to age him for certain scenes took up to four hours to apply. Welles used this time to discuss the day's shooting with Toland and other crew members. The special contact lenses used to make Welles look elderly proved very painful, and a doctor was employed to place them into Welles's eyes. Welles had difficulty seeing clearly while wearing them, which caused him to badly cut his wrist when shooting the scene in which Kane breaks up the furniture in Susan's bedroom. While shooting the scene in which Kane shouts at Gettys on the stairs of Susan Alexander's apartment building, Welles fell ten feet; an X-ray revealed two bone chips in his ankle.[11]:194 The injury required him to direct the film from a wheelchair for two weeks.[11]:194–195 He eventually wore a steel brace to resume performing on camera; it is visible in the low-angle scene between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election.[lower-alpha 10][12]:61 For the final scene, a stage at the Selznick studio was equipped with a working furnace, and multiple takes were required to show the sled being put into the fire and the word "Rosebud" consumed. Paul Stewart recalled that on the ninth take the Culver City Fire Department arrived in full gear because the furnace had grown so hot the flue caught fire. "Orson was delighted with the commotion", he said.[41]:8–9
When "Rosebud" was burned, Welles choreographed the scene while he had composer Bernard Herrmann's cue playing on the set.[52]
Unlike Schaefer, many members of RKO's board of governors did not like Welles or the control that his contract gave him.[11]:186 However such board members as Nelson Rockefeller and NBC chief David Sarnoff[46]:1170 were sympathetic to Welles.[53] Throughout production Welles had problems with these executives not respecting his contract's stipulation of non-interference and several spies arrived on set to report what they saw to the executives. When the executives would sometimes arrive on set unannounced the entire cast and crew would suddenly start playing softball until they left. Before official shooting began the executives intercepted all copies of the script and delayed their delivery to Welles. They had one copy sent to their office in New York, resulting in it being leaked to press.[11]:195
Principal shooting wrapped October 24. Welles then took several weeks off of the film for a lecture tour, during which he also scouted additional locations with Toland and Ferguson. Filming resumed November 15[10]:87 with some re-shoots. Toland had to leave due to a commitment to shoot Howard Hughes' The Outlaw, but Toland's camera crew continued working on the film and Toland was replaced by RKO cinematographer Harry J. Wild. The final day of shooting on November 30 was Kane's death scene.[10]:85 Welles boasted that he only went 21 days over his official shooting schedule, without factoring in the month of "camera tests."[11]:195 According to RKO records, the film cost $839,727. Its estimated budget had been $723,800.[5]
Post-production[]
Citizen Kane was edited by Robert Wise and assistant editor Mark Robson.[34]:85 Both would become successful film directors. Wise was hired after Welles finished shooting the "camera tests" and began officially making the film. Wise said that Welles "had an older editor assigned to him for those tests and evidently he was not too happy and asked to have somebody else. I was roughly Orson's age and had several good credits." Wise and Robson began editing the film while it was still shooting and said that they "could tell certainly that we were getting something very special. It was outstanding film day in and day out."[46]:1210 Welles gave Wise detailed instructions and was usually not present during the film's editing.[10]:109 The film was very well planned out and intentionally shot for such post-production techniques as slow dissolves.[42] The lack of coverage made editing easy since Welles and Toland edited the film "in camera" by leaving few options of how it could be put together.[10]:110 Wise said the breakfast table sequence took weeks to edit and get the correct "timing" and "rhythm" for the whip pans and over-lapping dialogue.[42] The News on the March sequence was edited by RKO's newsreel division to give it authenticity.[10]:110 They used stock footage from Pathé News and the General Film Library.[5]
During post-production Welles and special effects artist Linwood G. Dunn experimented with an optical printer to improve certain scenes that Welles found unsatisfactory from the footage.[42] Whereas Welles was often immediately pleased with Wise's work, he would require Dunn and post-production audio engineer James G. Stewart to re-do their work several times until he was satisfied.[10]:109
Welles hired Bernard Herrmann to compose the film's score. Where most Hollywood film scores were written quickly, in as few as two or three weeks after filming was completed, Herrmann was given 12 weeks to write the music. He had sufficient time to do his own orchestrations and conducting, and worked on the film reel by reel as it was shot and cut. He wrote complete musical pieces for some of the montages, and Welles edited many of the scenes to match their length.[54]
Trailer[]
Main article: Citizen Kane trailer
Written and directed by Welles at Toland's suggestion, the theatrical trailer for Citizen Kane differs from other trailers in that it did not feature a single second of footage of the actual film itself, but acts as a wholly original, tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-documentary piece on the film's production.[38]:230 Filmed at the same time as Citizen Kane itself, it offers the only existing behind-the-scenes footage of the film. The trailer, shot by Harry J. Wild instead of Toland, follows an unseen Welles as he provides narration for a tour around the film set, introductions to the film's core cast members, and a brief overview of Kane's character.[12]:360 The trailer also contains a number of trick shots, including one of Everett Sloane appearing at first to be running into the camera, which turns out to be the reflection of the camera in a mirror.[55]
At the time, it was almost unprecedented for a film trailer to not actually feature anything of the film itself; and while Citizen Kane is frequently cited as a ground-breaking, influential film, Simon Callow argues its trailer was no less original in its approach. Callow writes that it has "great playful charm ... it is a miniature documentary, almost an introduction to the cinema ... Teasing, charming, completely original, it is a sort of conjuring trick: without his face appearing once on the screen, Welles entirely dominates its five [sic] minutes' duration."[14]:558–9
Style[]
Film scholars and historians view Citizen Kane as Welles's attempt to create a new style of filmmaking by studying various forms of film making, and combining them all into one. However, Welles stated that his love for cinema began only when he started the work on the film. When asked where he got the confidence as a first-time director to direct a film so radically different from contemporary cinema, he responded, "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance—you know there's no confidence to equal it. It's only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you're timid or careful."[24]:80
David Bordwell wrote that "The best way to understand Citizen Kane is to stop worshiping it as a triumph of technique." Bordwell argues that the film did not invent any of its famous techniques such as deep focus cinematography, shots of the ceilings, chiaroscuro lighting and temporal jump-cuts, and many of these stylistics had been used in German Expressionist films of the 1920s, such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. But Bordwell asserts that the film did put them all together for the first time and perfected the medium in one single film.[46]:1171 In a 1948 interview D. W. Griffith said "I loved Citizen Kane and particularly loved the ideas he took from me."[56]
Arguments against the film's cinematic innovations were made as early as 1946 when French historian Georges Sadoul wrote that "the film is an encyclopedia of old techniques." Sadoul pointed out such examples as compositions that used both the foreground and the background in the films of Auguste and Louis Lumière, special effects used in the films of Georges Méliès, shots of the ceiling in Erich von Stroheim's Greed and newsreel montages in the films of Dziga Vertov.[57]
French film critic André Bazin defended the film and wrote that "In this respect, the accusation of plagiarism could very well be extended to the film's use of panchromatic film or its exploitation of the properties of gelatinous silver halide." Bazin disagreed with Sadoul's comparison to Lumière's cinematography since Citizen Kane used more sophisticated lenses,[58]:232 but acknowledged that the film had similarities to such previous works as The 49th Parallel and The Power and the Glory. Bazin stated that "even if Welles did not invent the cinematic devices employed in Citizen Kane, one should nevertheless credit him with the invention of their meaning."[58]:233 Bazin championed the techniques in the film for its depiction of heightened reality, but Bordwell believes that the film's use of special effects contradict some of Bazin's theories.[59]:75
Storytelling techniques[]
Citizen Kane eschews the traditional linear, chronological narrative, and tells Kane's story entirely in flashback using different points of view, many of them from Kane's aged and forgetful associates, the cinematic equivalent of the unreliable narrator in literature.[60]:83 Welles also dispenses with the idea of a single storyteller and uses multiple narrators to recount Kane's life. The use of multiple narrators was unheard of in Hollywood films.[60]:81 Each narrator recounts a different part of Kane's life, with each story partly overlapping.[61] The film depicts Kane as an enigma, a complicated man who, in the end, leaves viewers with more questions than answers as to his character, such as the newsreel footage where he is attacked for being both a communist and a fascist.[60]:82–84
The technique of using flashbacks had been used in earlier films—most notably in The Power and the Glory (1933)[62]—but no film was as immersed in this technique as Citizen Kane. The use of the reporter Thompson acts as a surrogate for the audience, questioning Kane's associates and piecing together his life.[61]
At that time films typically had an "omniscient perspective", which Marilyn Fabe says give the audience the "illusion that we are looking with impunity into a world which is unaware of our gaze, Hollywood movies give us a feeling of power." The film begins in this fashion up until the News on the March sequence, after which we the audience see the film through the perspectives of others.[60]:81 The News on the March sequence gives an overview of Kane's entire life (and the film's entire story) at the beginning of the film, leaving the audience without the typical suspense of wondering how it will end. Instead the film's repetitions of events compels the audience to analyze and wonder why Kane's life happened the way that it did, under the pretext of finding out what "Rosebud" means. The film then returns to the omniscient perspective in the final scene, when only the audience discovers what "Rosebud" is.[60]:82–83
Cinematography[]
Page Template:Multiple image/styles.css has no content.
The most innovative technical aspect of Citizen Kane is the extended use of deep focus.[63] In nearly every scene in the film, the foreground, background and everything in between are all in sharp focus. Cinematographer Toland did this through his experimentation with lenses and lighting. Toland described the achievement, made possible by the sensitivity of modern speed film, in an article for Theatre Arts magazine:
New developments in the science of motion picture photography are not abundant at this advanced stage of the game but periodically one is perfected to make this a greater art. Of these I am in an excellent position to discuss what is termed "Pan-focus", as I have been active for two years in its development and used it for the first time in Citizen Kane. Through its use, it is possible to photograph action from a range of eighteen inches from the camera lens to over two hundred feet away, with extreme foreground and background figures and action both recorded in sharp relief. Hitherto, the camera had to be focused either for a close or a distant shot, all efforts to encompass both at the same time resulting in one or the other being out of focus. This handicap necessitated the breaking up of a scene into long and short angles, with much consequent loss of realism. With pan-focus, the camera, like the human eye, sees an entire panorama at once, with everything clear and lifelike.[64]
Both this article and a May 1941 Life magazine article with illustrated examples[65] helped popularize deep focus cinematography and Toland's achievements on the film.[59]:73
Another unorthodox method used in the film was the way low-angle shots were used to display a point of view facing upwards, thus allowing ceilings to be shown in the background of several scenes. Breaking with studio convention, every set was built with a ceiling[64]—many constructed of fabric that ingeniously concealed microphones.[66] Welles felt that the camera should show what the eyes see, and that it was a bad theatrical convention to pretend there was no ceiling—"a big lie in order to get all those terrible lights up there," he said. He became fascinated with the look of low angles, which made even dull interiors look interesting. One extremely low angle is used to photograph the encounter between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election. A hole was dug for the camera, which required drilling into the concrete floor.[12]:61–62
Welles credited Toland on the same title card as himself and said "It's impossible to say how much I owe to Gregg. He was superb."[12]:59[lower-alpha 11][lower-alpha 12] He called Toland "the best director of photography that ever existed."[68]
Sound[]
Citizen Kane's sound was recorded by Bailey Fesler and re-recorded in post-production by audio engineer James G. Stewart,[34]:85 both of whom had worked in radio.[10]:102 Stewart said that Hollywood films never deviated from a basic pattern of how sound could be recorded or used, but with Welles "deviation from the pattern was possible because he demanded it."[42] Although the film is known for its complex soundtrack, much of the audio is heard as it was recorded by Fesler and without manipulation.[10]:102
Welles used techniques from radio like overlapping dialogue. The scene in which characters sing "Oh, Mr. Kane" was especially complicated and required mixing several soundtracks together.[10]:104 He also used different "sound perspectives" to create the illusion of distances,[10]:101 such as in scenes at Xanadu where characters speak to each other at far distances.[42] Welles experimented with sound in post-production, creating audio montages,[69]:94 and chose to create all of the sound effects for the film instead of using RKO's library of sound effects.[10]:100
Welles used an aural technique from radio called the "lightning-mix". Welles used this technique to link complex montage sequences via a series of related sounds or phrases. For example, Kane grows from a child into a young man in just two shots. As Thatcher hands eight-year-old Kane a sled and wishes him a Merry Christmas, the sequence suddenly jumps to a shot of Thatcher fifteen years later, completing the sentence he began in both the previous shot and the chronological past. Other radio techniques include using a number of voices, each saying a sentence or sometimes merely a fragment of a sentence, and splicing the dialogue together in quick succession, such as the projection room scene.[70]:413–412 The film's sound cost $16,996, but was originally budgeted at $7,288.[10]:105
Film critic and director François Truffaut wrote that "Before Kane, nobody in Hollywood knew how to set music properly in movies. Kane was the first, in fact the only, great film that uses radio techniques. ... A lot of filmmakers know enough to follow Auguste Renoir's advice to fill the eyes with images at all costs, but only Orson Welles understood that the sound track had to be filled in the same way."[71] Cedric Belfrage of The Clipper wrote "of all of the delectable flavours that linger on the palate after seeing Kane, the use of sound is the strongest."[46]:1171
Make-up[]
The make-up for Citizen Kane was created and applied by Maurice Seiderman (1907–1989), a junior member of the RKO make-up department.[72]:19 Seiderman's family came to the United States from Russia in 1920, escaping persecution.[72]:18 As a child Seiderman had won a drawing competition and received an apprenticeship at the Moscow Art Theatre,[36]:157 where his father was a wigmaker and make-up artist.[73]:42 In New York his uncle was a theatrical scenic painter, and he helped Seiderman get into the union.[72]:18 He worked on Max Reinhardt's 1924 production of The Miracle and with the Yiddish Art Theatre,[36]:157 and he studied the human figure at the Art Students League of New York.[73]:42 After he moved to Los Angeles he was hired first by Max Factor and then by RKO.[72]:19 Seiderman had not been accepted into the union, which recognized him as only an apprentice, but RKO nevertheless used him to make up principal actors.[72]:19
"Apprentices were not supposed to make up any principals, only extras, and an apprentice could not be on a set without a journeyman present," wrote make-up artist Dick Smith, who became friends with Seiderman in 1979. "During his years at RKO I suspect these rules were probably overlooked often."[72]:19 By 1940 Seiderman's uncredited film work included Winterset, Gunga Din, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Swiss Family Robinson and Abe Lincoln in Illinois.[73]:48 "Seiderman had gained a reputation as one of the most inventive and creatively precise up-and-coming makeup men in Hollywood," wrote biographer Frank Brady.[9]:253
On an early tour of RKO, Welles met Seiderman in the small make-up lab he created for himself in an unused dressing room.[72]:19 "Welles fastened on to him at once," wrote biographer Charles Higham. "With his great knowledge of makeup—indeed, his obsession with it, for he hated his flat nose—Welles was fascinated ... Seiderman had an intimate knowledge of anatomy and the process of aging and was acquainted with every line, wrinkle and accretion of fat in aging men and women. Impatient with most makeup methods of his era, he used casts of his subjects in order to develop makeup methods that ensured complete naturalness of expression—a naturalness unrivaled in Hollywood."[36]:157
"When Kane came out in script form, Orson told all of us about the picture and said that the most important aspect was the makeup," Seiderman recalled. "I felt that I was being given an assignment that was unique—so I worked accordingly. And there was a lot of work to do. Straight makeups were done in the makeup department by staff, but all the trick stuff and the principal characters were my personal work; nobody else ever touched them. They could not have handled it."[73]:46
Seiderman developed a thorough plan for aging the principal characters, first making a plaster cast of the face of each of the actors who aged, except Joseph Cotten who was unavailable at that time. He made a plaster mold of Welles's body down to the hips.[73]:46
"My sculptural techniques for the characters' aging were handled by adding pieces of white modeling clay, which matched the plaster, onto the surface of each bust," Seiderman told visual arts historian Norman Gambill. When Seiderman achieved the desired effect he cast the clay pieces in a soft plastic material[73]:46 that he formulated himself.[72]:20 These appliances were then placed onto the plaster bust and a four-piece mold was made for each phase of aging. The castings were then fully painted and paired with the appropriate wig for evaluation.[73]:46–47
Before the actors went before the cameras each day, the pliable pieces were applied directly to their faces to recreate Seiderman's sculptural image. Welles was allergic to Max Factor's gum, so Seiderman invented an alternative that also photographed more realistically.[73]:46 The facial surface was underpainted in a flexible red plastic compound;[73]:43 Cotten recalled being instructed to puff out his cheeks during this process. Later, seeing the results in the mirror, Cotten told Seiderman, "I am acting the part of a nice old gentleman, not a relief map of the Rocky Mountains." Seiderman replied, "You'd be surprised at what the camera doesn't see unless we place it within its view. How about some more coffee?"[74]:43
The red ground resulted in a warmth of tone that was picked up by the sensitive panchromatic film. Over that was applied liquid greasepaint, and then finally a colorless translucent talcum.[73]:42–43 Seiderman created the effect of skin pores on Kane's face by stippling the surface with a negative cast he made from an orange peel.[73]:42, 47
Welles was just as heavily made up as young Kane as he was for old Kane, and he often arrived on the set at 2:30 a.m.[12]:69 Application of the sculptural make-up for the oldest incarnation of the character took three-and-a-half hours. The make-up included appliances to age Welles's shoulders, breast and stomach.[72]:19–20 "In the film and production photographs, you can see that Kane had a belly that overhung," Seiderman said. "That was not a costume, it was the rubber sculpture that created the image. You could see how Kane's silk shirt clung wetly to the character's body. It could not have been done any other way."[73]:46
Seiderman worked with Charles Wright on the wigs. These went over a flexible skull cover that Seiderman created and sewed into place with elastic thread. When he found the wigs too full he untied one hair at a time to alter their shape. Kane's mustache was inserted into the makeup surface a few hairs at a time, to realistically vary the color and texture.[73]:43, 47
Seiderman made scleral lenses for Welles, Dorothy Comingore, George Coulouris and Everett Sloane, to dull the brightness of their young eyes. The lenses took a long time to fit properly, and Seiderman began work on them before devising any of the other makeup. "I painted them to age in phases, ending with the blood vessels and the Aurora Senilis of old age."[73]:47[lower-alpha 13]
"Cotten was the only principal for whom I had not made any sculptural casts, wigs or lenses," Seiderman said. When Cotten's old-age scenes needed to be shot out of sequence due to Welles's injured ankle, Seiderman improvised with appliances made for Kane's make-up. A sun visor was chosen to conceal Cotten's low hairline[73]:47–48 and the lenses he wore—hastily supplied by a Beverly Hills ophthalmologist—were uncomfortable.[74]:44–45
Seiderman's tour de force, the breakfast montage, was shot all in one day. "Twelve years, two years shot at each scene," he said. "Please realize, by the way, that a two-year jump in age is a bit harder to accomplish visually than one of 20 years."[73]:47
As they did with art direction, the major studios gave screen credit for make-up to only the department head. When RKO make-up department head Mel Berns refused to share credit with Seiderman, who was only an apprentice, Welles told Berns that there would be no make-up credit. Welles signed a large advertisement in the Los Angeles newspaper:[72]:22[73]:48
THANKS TO EVERYBODY WHO GETS SCREEN CREDIT FOR "CITIZEN KANE"
AND THANKS TO THOSE WHO DON'T
TO ALL THE ACTORS, THE CREW, THE OFFICE, THE MUSICIANS, EVERYBODY
AND PARTICULARLY TO MAURICE SEIDERMAN, THE BEST MAKE-UP MAN IN THE WORLD[72]:20
"To put this event in context, remember that I was a very low man," Seiderman recalled. "I wasn't even called a make-up man. I had started their laboratory and developed their plastic appliances for make-up. But my salary was $25 a week. And I had no union card."[73]:48
Seiderman told Gambill that after Citizen Kane was released, Welles was invited to a White House dinner where Frances Perkins was among the guests. Welles told her about the Russian immigrant who did the make-up for his film but could not join the union. Seiderman said the head of the union received a call from the Labor Department the next day, and in November 1941 he was a full union member.[72]:22[73]:48[lower-alpha 14]
Sets[]
Although credited as an assistant, the film's art direction was done by Perry Ferguson.[34]:85 Welles and Ferguson got along during their collaboration.[10]:37 In the weeks before production began Welles, Toland and Ferguson met regularly to discuss the film and plan every shot, set design and prop. Ferguson would take notes during these discussions and create rough designs of the sets and story boards for individual shots. After Welles approved the rough sketches, Ferguson made miniature models for Welles and Toland to experiment on with a periscope in order to rehearse and perfect each shot. Ferguson then had detailed drawings made for the set design, including the film's lighting design. The set design was an integral part of the film's overall look and Toland's cinematography.[10]:42
In the original script the Great Hall at Xanadu was modeled after the Great Hall in Hearst Castle and its design included a mixture of Renaissance and Gothic styles.[10]:50–51 "The Hearstian element is brought out in the almost perverse juxtaposition of incongruous architectural styles and motifs," wrote Carringer.[10]:54 Before RKO cut the film's budget, Ferguson's designs were more elaborate and resembled the production designs of early Cecil B. DeMille films and Intolerance.[10]:55 The budget cuts reduced Ferguson's budget by 33 percent and his work cost $58,775 total,[10]:65 which was below average at that time.[69]:93 To save costs Ferguson and Welles re-wrote scenes in Xanadu's living room and transported them to the Great Hall. A large staircase from another film was found and used at no additional cost.[10]:56–57 When asked about the limited budget, Ferguson said "Very often—as in that much-discussed 'Xanadu' set in Citizen Kane—we can make a foreground piece, a background piece, and imaginative lighting suggest a great deal more on the screen than actually exists on the stage."[10]:65–66 According to the film's official budget there were 81 sets built, but Ferguson said there were between 106 and 116.[10]:64
Still photographs of Oheka Castle in Huntington, New York, were used in the opening montage, representing Kane's Xanadu estate.[77][78] Ferguson also designed statues from Kane's collection with styles ranging from Greek to German Gothic.[10]:61 The sets were also built to accommodate Toland's camera movements. Walls were built to fold and furniture could quickly be moved. The film's famous ceilings were made out of muslin fabric and camera boxes were built into the floors for low angle shots.[10]:64–65 Welles later said that he was proud that the film production value looked much more expensive than the film's budget. Although neither worked with Welles again, Toland and Ferguson collaborated in several films in the 1940s.[10]:65
Special effects[]
The film's special effects were supervised by RKO department head Vernon L. Walker.[34]:85 Welles pioneered several visual effects to cheaply shoot things like crowd scenes and large interior spaces. For example, the scene in which the camera in the opera house rises dramatically to the rafters, to show the workmen showing a lack of appreciation for Susan Alexander Kane's performance, was shot by a camera craning upwards over the performance scene, then a curtain wipe to a miniature of the upper regions of the house, and then another curtain wipe matching it again with the scene of the workmen. Other scenes effectively employed miniatures to make the film look much more expensive than it truly was, such as various shots of Xanadu.[79]
Some shots included rear screen projection in the background, such as Thompson's interview of Leland and some of the ocean backgrounds at Xanadu.[10]:88 Bordwell claims that the scene where Thatcher agrees to be Kane's guardian used rear screen projection to depict young Kane in the background, despite this scene being cited as a prime example of Toland's deep focus cinematography.[59]:74 A special effects camera crew from Walker's department was required for the extreme close-up shots such as Kane's lips when he says "Rosebud" and the shot of the typewriter typing Susan's bad review.[10]:88
Optical effects artist Dunn claimed that "up to 80 percent of some reels was optically printed." These shots were traditionally attributed to Toland for years.[80]:110 The optical printer improved some of the deep focus shots.[10]:92 One problem with the optical printer was that it sometimes created excessive graininess, such as the optical zoom out of the snow globe. Welles decided to superimpose snow falling to mask the graininess in these shots.[10]:94 Toland said that he disliked the results of the optical printer,[10]:92 but acknowledged that "RKO special effects expert Vernon Walker, ASC, and his staff handled their part of the production—a by no means inconsiderable assignment—with ability and fine understanding."[59]:74–75
Any time deep focus was impossible—as in the scene in which Kane finishes a negative review of Susan's opera while at the same time firing the person who began writing the review—an optical printer was used to make the whole screen appear in focus, visually layering one piece of film onto another.[10]:92 However, some apparently deep-focus shots were the result of in-camera effects, as in the famous scene in which Kane breaks into Susan's room after her suicide attempt. In the background, Kane and another man break into the room, while simultaneously the medicine bottle and a glass with a spoon in it are in closeup in the foreground. The shot was an in-camera matte shot. The foreground was shot first, with the background dark. Then the background was lit, the foreground darkened, the film rewound, and the scene re-shot with the background action.[10]:82
Music[]
The film's music was composed by Bernard Herrmann.[81]:72 Herrmann had composed for Welles for his Mercury Theatre radio broadcasts.[81]:63 Because it was Herrmann's first motion picture score, RKO wanted to pay him only a small fee, but Welles insisted he be paid at the same rate as Max Steiner.[81]:72
The score established Herrmann as an important new composer of film soundtracks[35] and eschewed the typical Hollywood practice of scoring a film with virtually non-stop music. Instead Herrmann used what he later described as '"radio scoring", musical cues typically 5–15 seconds in length that bridge the action or suggest a different emotional response.[81]:77–78 The breakfast montage sequence begins with a graceful waltz theme and gets darker with each variation on that theme as the passage of time leads to the hardening of Kane's personality and the breakdown of his first marriage.[82][83]
Herrmann realized that musicians slated to play his music were hired for individual unique sessions; there was no need to write for existing ensembles. This meant that he was free to score for unusual combinations of instruments, even instruments that are not commonly heard. In the opening sequence, for example, the tour of Kane's estate Xanadu, Herrmann introduces a recurring leitmotiv played by low woodwinds, including a quartet of alto flutes.[84]
For Susan Alexander Kane's operatic sequence, Welles suggested that Herrmann compose a witty parody of a Mary Garden vehicle, an aria from Salammbô.[12]:57 "Our problem was to create something that would give the audience the feeling of the quicksand into which this simple little girl, having a charming but small voice, is suddenly thrown," Herrmann said.[81]:79 Writing in the style of a 19th-century French Oriental opera,[54] Herrmann put the aria in a key that would force the singer to strain to reach the high notes, culminating in a high D, well outside the range of Susan Alexander.[81]:79–80 Soprano Jean Forward dubbed the vocal part for Comingore.[35] Houseman claimed to have written the libretto, based on Jean Racine's Athalie and Phedre,[23]:460–461 although some confusion remains since Lucille Fletcher remembered preparing the lyrics.[81]:80 Fletcher, then Herrmann's wife, wrote the libretto for his opera Wuthering Heights.[81]:11
Music enthusiasts consider the scene in which Susan Alexander Kane attempts to sing the famous cavatina "Una voce poco fa" from Il barbiere di Siviglia by Gioachino Rossini with vocal coach Signor Matiste as especially memorable for depicting the horrors of learning music through mistakes.[85]
In 1972, Herrmann said, "I was fortunate to start my career with a film like Citizen Kane, it's been a downhill run ever since!" Welles loved Herrmann's score and told director Henry Jaglom that it was 50 percent responsible for the film's artistic success.[81]:84
Some incidental music came from other sources. Welles heard the tune used for the publisher's theme, "Oh, Mr. Kane", in Mexico.[12]:57 Called "A Poco No", the song was written by Pepe Guízar and special lyrics were written by Herman Ruby.[86]
"In a Mizz", a 1939 jazz song by Charlie Barnet and Haven Johnson, bookends Thompson's second interview of Susan Alexander Kane.[10]:108[86] "I kind of based the whole scene around that song," Welles said. "The music is by Nat Cole—it's his trio."[12]:56 Later—beginning with the lyrics, "It can't be love"—"In a Mizz" is performed at the Everglades picnic, framing the fight in the tent between Susan and Kane.[10]:108 Musicians including bandleader Cee Pee Johnson (drums), Alton Redd (vocals), Raymond Tate (trumpet), Buddy Collette (alto sax) and Buddy Banks (tenor sax) are featured.[87]
All of the music used in the newsreel came from the RKO music library, edited at Welles's request by the newsreel department to achieve what Herrmann called "their own crazy way of cutting". The News on the March theme that accompanies the newsreel titles is "Belgian March" by Anthony Collins, from the film Nurse Edith Cavell. Other examples are an excerpt from Alfred Newman's score for Gunga Din (the exploration of Xanadu), Roy Webb's theme for the film Reno (the growth of Kane's empire), and bits of Webb's score for Five Came Back (introducing Walter Parks Thatcher).[81]:79[86]
Editing[]
One of the editing techniques used in Citizen Kane was the use of montage to collapse time and space, using an episodic sequence on the same set while the characters changed costume and make-up between cuts so that the scene following each cut would look as if it took place in the same location, but at a time long after the previous cut. In the breakfast montage, Welles chronicles the breakdown of Kane's first marriage in five vignettes that condense 16 years of story time into two minutes of screen time.[88] Welles said that the idea for the breakfast scene "was stolen from The Long Christmas Dinner of Thornton Wilder ... a one-act play, which is a long Christmas dinner that takes you through something like 60 years of a family's life."[12]:51 The film often uses long dissolves to signify the passage of time and its psychological effect of the characters, such as the scene in which the abandoned sled is covered with snow after the young Kane is sent away with Thatcher.[60]:90–91
Welles was influenced by the editing theories of Sergei Eisenstein by using jarring cuts that caused "sudden graphic or associative contrasts", such as the cut from Kane's deathbed to the beginning of the News on the March sequence and a sudden shot of a shrieking bird at the beginning of Raymond's flashback.[60]:88–89 Although the film typically favors mise-en-scène over montage, the scene in which Kane goes to Susan Alexander's apartment after first meeting her is the only one that is primarily cut as close-ups with shots and counter shots between Kane and Susan.[34]:68 Fabe says that "by using a standard Hollywood technique sparingly, [Welles] revitalizes its psychological expressiveness."[60]:88
Themes[]
Political themes[]
In her 1992 monograph for the British Film Institute, critic Laura Mulvey explored the anti-fascist themes of Citizen Kane. The News on the March newsreel presents Kane keeping company with Hitler and other dictators while he smugly assures the public there will be no war.[89]:44 Mulvey wrote that the film reflects "the battle between intervention and isolationism" then being waged in the United States; the film was released six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was laboring to win public opinion for entering World War II. "Not only was the war in Europe the burning public issue of the time," Mulvey wrote, "it was of passionate personal importance to Orson Welles ... In the rhetoric of Citizen Kane, the destiny of isolationism is realised in metaphor: in Kane's own fate, dying wealthy and lonely, surrounded by the detritus of European culture and history."[34]:15
Journalist Ignacio Ramonet has cited the film as an early example of mass media manipulation of public opinion and the power that media conglomerates have on influencing the democratic process. Ramonet believes that this early example of a media mogul influencing politics is outdated and that "today Citizen Kane would be a dwarf. He owned a few papers in one country. The forces that dominate today have integrated image with text and sound and the world is their market. There are media groups with the power of a thousand Citizen Kanes."[90][91] Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is sometimes labeled as a latter-day Citizen Kane.[92][93]
Reception[]
Pre-release controversy[]
To ensure that Citizen Kane's influence from Hearst's life was a secret, Welles limited access to dailies and managed the film's publicity. A December 1940 feature story in Stage magazine compared the film's narrative to Faust and made no mention of Hearst.[10]:111
The film was scheduled to premiere at RKO's flagship theater Radio City Music Hall on February 14, but in early January 1941 Welles was not finished with post-production work and told RKO that it still needed its musical score.[11]:205 Writers for national magazines had early deadlines and so a rough cut was previewed for a select few on January 3, 1941[10]:111 for such magazines as Life, Look and Redbook. Gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (and Parsons' arch rival) showed up to the screening uninvited. Most of the critics at the preview said that they liked the film and gave it good advanced reviews. Hopper wrote negatively about it, calling the film a "vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man" and criticizing its corny writing and old fashioned photography.[11]:205 Friday magazine ran an article drawing point-by-point comparisons between Kane and Hearst and documented how Welles had led on Parsons, Hollywood correspondent for Hearst papers.[10]:111 Up until this Welles had been friendly with Parsons. The magazine quoted Welles as saying that he couldn't understand why she was so nice to him and that she should "wait until the woman finds out that the picture's about her boss." Welles immediately denied making the statement and the editor of Friday admitted that it may be false. Welles apologized to Parsons and assured her that he had never made that remark.[11]:205
Shortly after Friday's article, Hearst sent Parsons an angry letter complaining that he had learned about Citizen Kane from Hopper and not her. The incident made a fool of Parsons and compelled her to start attacking Welles and the film. Parsons demanded a private screening of the film and personally threatened Schaefer on Hearst's behalf, first with a lawsuit and then with a vague threat of consequences for everyone in Hollywood. On January 10 Parsons and two lawyers working for Hearst were given a private screening of the film.[11]:206 James G. Stewart was present at the screening and said that she walked out of the film.[41]:11 Soon after, Parsons called Schaefer and threatened RKO with a lawsuit if they released Kane.[10]:111 She also contacted the management of Radio City Music Hall and demanded that they not screen it.[11]:206 The next day, the front page headline in Daily Variety read, "HEARST BANS RKO FROM PAPERS."[94] Hearst began this ban by suppressing promotion of RKO's Kitty Foyle,[69]:94 but in two weeks the ban was lifted for everything except Kane.[10]:111
When Schaefer did not submit to Parsons she called other studio heads and made more threats on behalf of Hearst to expose the private lives of people throughout the entire film industry.[11]:206 Welles was threatened with an exposé about his romance with the married actress Dolores del Rio, who wanted the affair kept secret until her divorce was finalized.[11]:207 In a statement to journalists Welles denied that the film was about Hearst. Hearst began preparing an injunction against the film for libel and invasion of privacy, but Welles's lawyer told him that he doubted Hearst would proceed due to the negative publicity and required testimony that an injunction would bring.[11]:209
The Hollywood Reporter ran a front-page story on January 13 that Hearst papers were about to run a series of editorials attacking Hollywood's practice of hiring refugees and immigrants for jobs that could be done by Americans. The goal was to put pressure on the other studios to force RKO to shelve Kane.[10]:111 Many of those immigrants had fled Europe after the rise of fascism and feared losing the safe haven of the United States.[11]:209 Soon afterwards, Schaefer was approached by Nicholas Schenck, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's parent company, with an offer on the behalf of Louis B. Mayer and other Hollywood executives to RKO Pictures of $805,000 to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative.[10]:111–112[95] Once RKO's legal team reassured Schaefer, the studio announced on January 21 that Kane would be released as scheduled, and with one of the largest promotional campaigns in the studio's history. Schaefer brought Welles to New York City for a private screening of the film with the New York corporate heads of the studios and their lawyers.[10]:112 There was no objection to its release provided that certain changes, including the removal or softening of specific references that might offend Hearst, were made.[10]:112–113 Welles agreed and cut the running time from 122 minutes to 119 minutes. The cuts satisfied the corporate lawyers.[10]:113
Hearst's response[]
Hearing about Citizen Kane enraged Hearst so much that he banned any advertising, reviewing, or mentioning of it in his papers, and had his journalists libel Welles.[95] Welles used Hearst's opposition as a pretext for previewing the film in several opinion-making screenings in Los Angeles, lobbying for its artistic worth against the hostile campaign that Hearst was waging.[95] A special press screening took place in early March. Henry Luce was in attendance and reportedly wanted to buy the film from RKO for $1 million to distribute it himself. The reviews for this screening were positive. A Hollywood Review headline read, "Mr. Genius Comes Through; 'Kane' Astonishing Picture". The Motion Picture Herald reported about the screening and Welles's intention to sue RKO. Time magazine wrote that "The objection of Mr. Hearst, who founded a publishing empire on sensationalism, is ironic. For to most of the several hundred people who have seen the film at private screenings, Citizen Kane is the most sensational product of the U.S. movie industry." A second press screening occurred in April.[69]:94
When Schaefer rejected Hearst's offer to suppress the film, Hearst banned every newspaper and station in his media conglomerate from reviewing—or even mentioning—the film. He also had many movie theaters ban it, and many did not show it through fear of being socially exposed by his massive newspaper empire.[96] The Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for the film's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable. Nevertheless, the film's commercial performance fell short of its creators' expectations.[25] Hearst's biographer David Nasaw points out that Hearst's actions were not the only reason Kane failed, however: the innovations Welles made with narrative, as well as the dark message at the heart of the film (that the pursuit of success is ultimately futile) meant that a popular audience could not appreciate its merits.[97]:572–573
Hearst's attacks against Welles went beyond attempting to suppress the film. Welles said that while he was on his post-filming lecture tour a police detective approached him at a restaurant and advised him not to go back to his hotel. A 14-year-old girl had reportedly been hidden in the closet of his room, and two photographers were waiting for him to walk in. Knowing he would be jailed after the resulting publicity, Welles did not return to the hotel but waited until the train left town the following morning. "But that wasn't Hearst," Welles said, "that was a hatchet man from the local Hearst paper who thought he would advance himself by doing it."[12]:85–86
In March 1941 Welles directed a Broadway version of Richard Wright's Native Son (and, for luck, used a "Rosebud" sled as a prop). Native Son received positive reviews, but Hearst-owned papers used the opportunity to attack Welles as a communist.[11]:213 The Hearst papers vociferously attacked Welles after his April 1941 radio play, "His Honor, the Mayor",[98] produced for The Free Company radio series on CBS.[33]:113[99]
Welles described his chance encounter with Hearst in an elevator at the Fairmont Hotel on the night Citizen Kane opened in San Francisco. Hearst and Welles's father were acquaintances, so Welles introduced himself and asked Hearst if he would like to come to the opening. Hearst did not respond. "As he was getting off at his floor, I said, 'Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.' No reply", recalled Welles. "And Kane would have you know. That was his style—just as he finished Jed Leland's bad review of Susan as an opera singer."[12]:49–50
In 1945 Hearst journalist Robert Shaw wrote that the film got "a full tide of insensate fury" from Hearst papers, "then it ebbed suddenly. With one brain cell working, the chief realized that such hysterical barking by the trained seals would attract too much attention to the picture. But to this day the name of Orson Welles is on the official son-of-a-bitch list of every Hearst newspaper."[100]:102
Despite Hearst's attempts to destroy the film, since 1941 references to his life and career have usually included a reference to Citizen Kane, such as the headline 'Son of Citizen Kane Dies' for the obituary of Hearst's son.[101] In 2012 the Hearst estate agreed to screen the film at Hearst Castle in San Simeon, breaking Hearst's ban on the film.[102]
Release[]
Radio City Music Hall's management refused to screen Citizen Kane for its premiere. A possible factor was Parsons's threat that The American Weekly would run a defamatory story on the grandfather of major RKO stockholder Nelson Rockefeller.[10]:115 Other exhibitors feared being sued for libel by Hearst and refused to show the film.[11]:216 In March Welles threatened the RKO board of governors with a lawsuit if they did not release the film. Schaefer stood by Welles and opposed the board of governors.[11]:210 When RKO still delayed the film's release Welles offered to buy the film for $1 million and the studio finally agreed to release the film on May 1.[11]:215
Schaefer managed to book a few theaters willing to show the film. Hearst papers refused to accept advertising.[10]:115 RKO's publicity advertisements for the film erroneously promoted it as a love story.[11]:217
Kane opened at the RKO Palace Theatre on Broadway in New York on May 1, 1941,[5] in Chicago on May 6, and in Los Angeles on May 8.[10]:115 Welles said that at the Chicago premiere that he attended the theater was almost empty.[11]:216 It did well in cities and larger towns but fared poorly in more remote areas. RKO still had problems getting exhibitors to show the film. For example, one chain controlling more than 500 theaters got Welles's film as part of a package but refused to play it, reportedly out of fear of Hearst.[10]:117 Hearst's disruption of the film's release damaged its box office performance and, as a result, it lost $160,000 during its initial run.[103]:164[104] The film earned $23,878 during its first week in New York. By the ninth week it only made $7,279. Overall it lost money in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., but made a profit in Seattle.[11]:216
Contemporary responses[]
Citizen Kane received good reviews from several critics. New York Daily News critic Kate Cameron called it "one of the most interesting and technically superior films that has ever come out of a Hollywood studio".[105] New York World-Telegram critic William Boehnel said that the film was "staggering and belongs at once among the greatest screen achievements".[106] Time magazine wrote that "it has found important new techniques in picture-making and story-telling."[11]:211 Life magazine's review said that "few movies have ever come from Hollywood with such powerful narrative, such original technique, such exciting photography."[11]:211 John C. Mosher of The New Yorker called the film's style "like fresh air" and raved "Something new has come to the movie world at last."[100]:68 Anthony Bower of The Nation called it "brilliant" and praised the cinematography and performances by Welles, Comingore and Cotten.[107] John O'Hara's Newsweek review called it the best picture he'd ever seen and said Welles was "the best actor in the history of acting."[11]:211 Welles called O'Hara's review "the greatest review that anybody ever had."[38]:100
The day following the premiere of Citizen Kane, The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote that "... it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood."
Count on Mr. Welles: he doesn't do things by halves. ... Upon the screen he discovered an area large enough for his expansive whims to have free play. And the consequence is that he has made a picture of tremendous and overpowering scope, not in physical extent so much as in its rapid and graphic rotation of thoughts. Mr. Welles has put upon the screen a motion picture that really moves.[108]
In the UK C. A. Lejeune of The Observer called it "The most exciting film that has come out of Hollywood in twenty-five years"[109] and Dilys Powell of The Sunday Times said the film's style was made "with the ease and boldness and resource of one who controls and is not controlled by his medium."[110]:63 Edward Tangye Lean of Horizon praised the film's technical style, calling it "perhaps a decade ahead of its contemporaries."[111][lower-alpha 15]
A few reviews were mixed. Otis Ferguson of The New Republic said it was "the boldest free-hand stroke in major screen production since Griffith and Bitzer were running wild to unshackle the camera", but also criticized its style, calling it a "retrogression in film technique" and stating that "it holds no great place" in film history.[113] In a rare film review, filmmaker Erich von Stroheim criticized the film's story and non-linear structure, but praised the technical style and performances, and wrote "Whatever the truth may be about it, Citizen Kane is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Welles!"[114]
Some prominent critics wrote negative reviews. In his 1941 review for Sur, Jorge Luis Borges famously called the film "a labyrinth with no center" and predicted that its legacy would be a film "whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again."[115] The Argus Weekend Magazine critic Erle Cox called the film "amazing" but thought that Welles's break with Hollywood traditions was "overdone."[116] Tatler's James Agate called it "the well-intentioned, muddled, amateurish thing one expects from high-brows"[117] and "a quite good film which tries to run the psychological essay in harness with your detective thriller, and doesn't quite succeed."[118] Eileen Creelman of The New York Sun called it "a cold picture, unemotional, a puzzle rather than a drama".[36]:178 Other people who disliked the film were W. H. Auden[38]:98 and James Agee.[38]:99
Awards[]
Citizen Kane received the New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Picture.[119] The National Board of Review voted it Best Film of 1941,[120] and recognized Welles and Coulouris for their performances.[121]
Citizen Kane received nine nominations at the 1941 Academy Awards:[122]
Outstanding Motion Picture – Mercury
Best Director – Orson Welles
Best Actor – Orson Welles
Best Writing (Original Screenplay) – Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles
Best Art Direction (Black-and-White) – Perry Ferguson, Van Nest Polglase, Al Fields, Darrell Silvera
Best Cinematography (Black-and-White) – Gregg Toland
Best Film Editing – Robert Wise
Best Music (Music Score of a Dramatic Picture) – Bernard Herrmann
Best Sound Recording – John Aalberg
It was widely believed the film would win most of its Oscar nominations, but it received only the award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay), shared by Welles and Mankiewicz. Variety reported that block voting by screen extras deprived Citizen Kane of Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Actor (Welles), and similar prejudices were likely to have been responsible for the film receiving no technical awards.[10]:117[123]
Legacy[]
Citizen Kane was the only film made under Welles's original contract with RKO Pictures, which gave him complete creative control.[11]:223 Welles's new business manager and attorney permitted the contract to lapse. In July 1941,[124][125] Welles reluctantly signed a new and less favorable deal with RKO[11]:223 under which he produced and directed The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), produced Journey into Fear (1943), and began It's All True, a film he agreed to do without payment. In the new contract Welles was an employee of the studio[126] and lost the right to final cut, which later allowed RKO to modify and re-cut The Magnificent Ambersons over his objections.[11]:223 In June 1942 Schaefer resigned the presidency of RKO Pictures and Welles's contract was terminated by his successor.[53]
Release in Europe[]
During World War II, Citizen Kane was not seen in most European countries. It was shown in France for the first time on July 10, 1946 at the Marbeuf theatre in Paris.[127]:34–35[lower-alpha 16] Initially most French film critics were influenced by the negative reviews of Jean-Paul Sartre in 1945 and Georges Sadoul in 1946.[10]:118 At that time many French intellectuals and filmmakers shared Sartre's negative opinion that Hollywood filmmakers were uncultured.[129]:124 Sartre criticized the film's flashbacks for its nostalgic and romantic preoccupation with the past instead of the realities of the present and said that "the whole film is based on a misconception of what cinema is all about. The film is in the past tense, whereas we all know that cinema has got to be in the present tense."[130][131]
André Bazin, a little-known film critic working for Sartre's Les Temps modernes, was asked to give an impromptu speech about the film after a screening at the Colisée Theatre in the autumn of 1946[127]:36 and changed the opinion of much of the audience. This speech led to Bazin's 1947 article "The Technique of Citizen Kane",[129]:125 which directly influenced public opinion about the film.[129]:124 Carringer wrote that Bazin was "the one who did the most to enhance the film's reputation."[10]:118[lower-alpha 17] Both Bazin's critique of the film and his theories about cinema itself centered around his strong belief in mise en scène. These theories were diametrically opposed to both the popular Soviet montage theory[58]:xiii and the politically Marxist and anti-Hollywood beliefs of most French film critics at that time.[127]:36 Bazin believed that a film should depict reality without the filmmaker imposing their "will" on the spectator, which the Soviet theory supported.[58]:xiii Bazin wrote that Citizen Kane's mise en scène created a "new conception of filmmaking"[58]:233 and that the freedom given to the audience from the deep focus shots was innovative by changing the entire concept of the cinematic image.[129]:128 Bazin wrote extensively about the mise en scène in the scene where Susan Alexander attempts suicide, which was one long take while other films would have used four or five shots in the scene.[58]:234 Bazin wrote that the film's mise en scène "forces the spectator to participate in the meaning of the film" and creates "a psychological realism which brings the spectator back to the real conditions of perception."[59]:72
In his 1950 essay "The Evolution of the Language of Cinema", Bazin placed Citizen Kane center stage as a work which ushered in a new period in cinema.[132]:37 One of the first critics to defend motion pictures as being on the same artistic level as literature or painting, Bazin often used the film as an example of cinema as an art form[129]:129 and wrote that "Welles has given the cinema a theoretical restoration. He has enriched his filmic repertory with new or forgotten effects that, in today's artistic context, take on a significance we didn't know they could have."[58]:236 Bazin also compared the film to Roberto Rossellini's Paisà for having "the same aesthetic concept of realism"[129]:117–118 and to the films of William Wyler shot by Toland (such as The Little Foxes and The Best Years of Our Lives), all of which used deep focus cinematography that Bazin called "a dialectical step forward in film language."[59]:71
Bazin's praise of the film went beyond film theory and reflected his own philosophy towards life itself.[129]:125 His metaphysical interpretations about the film reflected humankind's place in the universe.[129]:128 Bazin believed that the film examined one person's identity and search for meaning. It portrayed the world as ambiguous and full of contradictions, whereas films up until then simply portrayed people's actions and motivations.[129]:130 Bazin's biographer Dudley Andrew wrote that:
The world of Citizen Kane, that mysterious, dark, and infinitely deep world of space and memory where voices trail off into distant echoes and where meaning dissolves into interpretation, seemed to Bazin to mark the starting point from which all of us try to construct provisionally the sense of our lives.[129]:129
Bazin went on to co-found Cahiers du cinéma, whose contributors (including future film directors François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard) also praised the film.[132]:37 The popularity of Truffaut's auteur theory helped the film's and Welles's reputation.[133]:263
Re-evaluation[]
By 1942 Citizen Kane had run its course theatrically and, apart from a few showings at big city arthouse cinemas, it largely vanished and both the film's and Welles's reputation fell among American critics. In 1949 critic Richard Griffith in his overview of cinema, The Film Till Now, dismissed Citizen Kane as "... tinpot if not crackpot Freud."[10]:117–118
In the United States, it was neglected and forgotten until its revival on television in the mid-1950s. Three key events in 1956 led to its re-evaluation in the United States: first, RKO was one of the first studios to sell its library to television, and early that year Citizen Kane started to appear on television; second, the film was re-released theatrically to coincide with Welles's return to the New York stage, where he played King Lear; and third, American film critic Andrew Sarris wrote "Citizen Kane: The American Baroque" for Film Culture, and described it as "the great American film" and "the work that influenced the cinema more profoundly than any American film since Birth of a Nation."[134] Carringer considers Sarris's essay as the most important influence on the film's reputation in the US.[10]:119
During Expo 58, a poll of over 100 film historians named Kane one of the top ten greatest films ever made (the group gave first-place honors to The Battleship Potemkin). When a group of young film directors announced their vote for the top six, they were booed for not including the film.[135]:152
In the decades since, its critical status as the greatest film ever made has grown, with numerous essays and books on it including Peter Cowie's The Cinema of Orson Welles, Ronald Gottesman's Focus on Citizen Kane, a collection of significant reviews and background pieces, and most notably Kael's essay, "Raising Kane", which promoted the value of the film to a much wider audience than it had reached before.[10]:120 Despite its criticism of Welles, it further popularized the notion of Citizen Kane as the great American film. The rise of art house and film society circuits also aided in the film's rediscovery.[10]:119 David Thomson said that the film 'grows with every year as America comes to resemble it."[46]:1172
The British magazine Sight & Sound has produced a Top Ten list surveying film critics every decade since 1952, and is regarded as one of the most respected barometers of critical taste.[136] Citizen Kane was a runner up to the top 10 in its 1952 poll but was voted as the greatest film ever made in its 1962 poll,[137] retaining the top spot in every subsequent poll[138][139][140] until 2012, when Vertigo displaced it.[141]
The film has also ranked number one in the following film "best of" lists: Julio Castedo's The 100 Best Films of the Century,[142] Cahiers du cinéma's 100 films pour une cinémathèque idéale,[143] Kinovedcheskie Zapiski,[144] Time Out magazine's Top 100 Films (Centenary),[145] The Village Voice's 100 Greatest Films,[146] and The Royal Belgian Film Archive's Most Important and Misappreciated American Films.[147]
Roger Ebert called Citizen Kane the greatest film ever made: "But people don't always ask about the greatest film. They ask, 'What's your favorite movie?' Again, I always answer with Citizen Kane."[148]
In 1989, the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. Citizen Kane was one of the first 25 films inducted into the registry.[149]
On February 18, 1999, the United States Postal Service honored Citizen Kane by including it in its Celebrate the Century series.[150] The film was honored again February 25, 2003, in a series of U.S. postage stamps marking the 75th anniversary of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Art director Perry Ferguson represents the behind-the-scenes craftsmen of filmmaking in the series; he is depicted completing a sketch for Citizen Kane.[151]
Citizen Kane was ranked number one in the American Film Institute's polls of film industry artists and leaders in 1998[152] and 2007.[153] "Rosebud" was chosen as the 17th most memorable movie quotation in a 2005 AFI poll.[154] The film's score was one of 250 nominees for the top 25 film scores in American cinema in another 2005 AFI poll.[155]
In 2012, the Motion Picture Editors Guild published a list of the 75 best-edited films of all time based on a survey of its membership. Citizen Kane was listed second.[156]
The film currently has a 100% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, based on 73 reviews by approved critics, with an average rating of 9.4/10. The site's consensus states: "Orson Welles's epic tale of a publishing tycoon's rise and fall is entertaining, poignant, and inventive in its storytelling, earning its reputation as a landmark achievement in film."[157]
Influence[]
Citizen Kane has been called the most influential film of all time.[158] Richard Corliss has asserted that Jules Dassin's 1941 film The Tell-Tale Heart was the first example of its influence[159] and the first pop culture reference to the film occurred later in 1941 when the spoof comedy Hellzapoppin' featured a "Rosebud" sled.[160][lower-alpha 18] The film's cinematography was almost immediately influential and in 1942 American Cinematographer wrote "without a doubt the most immediately noticeable trend in cinematography methods during the year was the trend toward crisper definition and increased depth of field."[162]:51
The cinematography influenced John Huston's The Maltese Falcon. Cinematographer Arthur Edeson used a wider-angle lens than Toland and the film includes many long takes, low angles and shots of the ceiling, but it did not use deep focus shots on large sets to the extent that Citizen Kane did. Edeson and Toland are often credited together for revolutionizing cinematography in 1941.[162]:48–50 Toland's cinematography influenced his own work on The Best Years of Our Lives. Other films influenced include Gaslight, Mildred Pierce and Jane Eyre.[10]:85–86 Cinematographer Kazuo Miyagawa said that his use of deep focus was influenced by "the camera work of Gregg Toland in Citizen Kane" and not by traditional Japanese art.[163]
Its cinematography, lighting, and flashback structure influenced such film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s as The Killers, Keeper of the Flame, Caught, The Great Man[70]:425 and This Gun for Hire.[10]:85–86 David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson have written that "For over a decade thereafter American films displayed exaggerated foregrounds and somber lighting, enhanced by long takes and exaggerated camera movements." However, by the 1960s filmmakers such as those from the French New Wave and Cinéma vérité movements favored "flatter, more shallow images with softer focus" and Citizen Kane's style became less fashionable. American filmmakers in the 1970s combined these two approaches by using long takes, rapid cutting, deep focus and telephoto shots all at once.[133]:798 Its use of long takes influenced films such as The Asphalt Jungle, and its use of deep focus cinematography influenced Gun Crazy,[133]:389–390 The Whip Hand, The Devil's General and Justice Is Done.[133]:414 The flashback structure in which different characters have conflicting versions of past events influenced La commare secca[133]:533 and Man of Marble.[133]:747
The film's structure influenced the biographical films Lawrence of Arabia and Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters—which begin with the subject's death and show their life in flashbacks—as well as Welles's thriller Mr. Arkadin.[135]:154 Rosenbaum sees similarities in the film's plot to Mr. Arkadin, as well as the theme of nostalgia for loss of innocence throughout Welles's career, beginning with Citizen Kane and including The Magnificent Ambersons, Mr. Arkadin and Chimes at Midnight. Rosenbaum also points out how the film influenced Warren Beatty's Reds. The film depicts the life of Jack Reed through the eyes of Louise Bryant, much as Kane's life is seen through the eyes of Thompson and the people who he interviews. Rosenbaum also compared the romantic montage between Reed and Bryant with the breakfast table montage in Citizen Kane.[164]:113–116, 300–302
Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon is often compared to the film due to both having complicated plot structures told by multiple characters in the film. Welles said his initial idea for the film was "Basically, the idea Rashomon used later on,"[12]:53 however Kurosawa had not yet seen the film before making Rashomon in 1950.[165]:78 Nigel Andrews has compared the film's complex plot structure to Rashomon, Last Year at Marienbad, Memento and Magnolia. Andrews also compares Charles Foster Kane to Michael Corleone in The Godfather, Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull and Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood for their portrayals of "haunted megalomaniac[s], presiding over the shards of [their] own [lives]."[166]
The films of Paul Thomas Anderson have been compared to it. Variety compared There Will Be Blood to the film[167] and called it "one that rivals Giant and Citizen Kane in our popular lore as origin stories about how we came to be the people we are."[168] The Master has been called "movieland's only spiritual sequel to Citizen Kane that doesn't shrivel under the hefty comparison"[169] and the film's loose depiction of L. Ron Hubbard has been compared to Citizen Kane's depiction of Hearst.[170] The Social Network has been compared to the film for its depiction of a media mogul and by the character Erica Albright being similar to "Rosebud".[171] The controversy of the Sony hacking before the release of The Interview b | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 70 | https://besttoppers.com/black-and-white-movies/ | en | The Top 10 Black and White Movies ! | [
"https://besttoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/BT-Site-Logo.png",
"https://besttoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/BT-Site-Logo.png",
"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/4325212480206a4fa7623eb06dcb69a2?s=26&d=mm&r=g",
"https://besttoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/black-and-white-movies-696x391.... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/wJ1TOratCTo?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/TmQir83IoBE?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/1yc5PugV4mk?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/8dxh3lwdOFw?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1",
"https://www... | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Nupur Saini"
] | 2021-03-11T10:00:00+00:00 | The black-and-white movies have created a unique aesthetic of their own over time, which yielded a list spanning genres, decades, and nationalities. | en | Best Toppers | https://besttoppers.com/black-and-white-movies/ | Thanks to ongoing progress in technology and picture resolution, modern films are more vivid than ever before. Yet it’s matter to be said for movies shot in black and white. For proof, look no further than Stanley Kubrick’s Path of Glory, which was deemed “culturally, historically or esthetically significant” by the Library of Congress and chosen for preservation in the US National Film Registry.
Along similar lines, plenty of Old Hollywood directors still opted for black and white even when Technicolor took the industry by storm.
We dug into IMDb’s broad database to determine the best black and white films of all time, which yielded a list spanning genres, decades, and nationalities. However, including black and white films with sparse color sequences (e.g., “Schindler’s List”).
What was the first black and white movie?
Roundhay Garden Scene (14 October 1888)
The world’s earliest surviving motion-picture film, which shows actual consecutive action. It’s a short film directed by Louis Le Prince ( a French inventor).
What was the last black and white film to win an Oscar?
It’s Schindler’s List, released in 1993. It won the best picture at the 66th Academy Awards.
Does Netflix have black and white movies?
The black-and-white movies have created a unique aesthetic of their own over time. Netflix is keen to sustain and update an ingenious list of black and white movies. It would be good if you had a Netflix subscription to access the list of really good black-and-white movies available to stream right now on Netflix.
Counting down from #10, here are the best black and white films of all time.
10. SEVEN SAMURAI (1954)
Seven Samurai is a 1954 Japanese epic samurai drama film edited, co-written, and directed by Akira Kurosawa. The story was carried out in 1586 during the Sengoku term of Japanese history. It pursues a village of farmers who hire seven rōnin (masterless samurai) to battle bandits who will return to steal their crops.
A veteran samurai, who has dropped on hard times, responds to a village’s request for security from bandits. He accumulates six other samurai to help him, and they teach the villagers how to defend themselves, and they provide the samurai with three small lunches a day. The film was the most outrageous film ever made in Japan. The film was the second-highest-grossing domestic film in Japan in 1954. Many reviews compared the film to westerns.
9. BLANCANIEVES
Blancanieves is a Spanish black-and-white silent drama written and directed by Pablo Berger. It is based on the 1812 Snow White (a fairy tale) spell by the Brothers Grimm. It had no fortune in Hollywood, not only because of The Artist’s seniority but also the intricacy of its focus, which moves beyond an indulgent look at traditional folklore. Pablo recalls it as a “love note to European mute cinema.” The prestigious Hispanist Stanley Payne states that all of Spain’s stereotypes held by that outside of the Spanish-speaking world fall into two paradigms: the Black Legend and romantic Spain.
8. THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (1946)
This ensemble movie was released just after World War II ceased in 1946—and it’s the type of cinema that should be on everyone’s movie night list. It is referred to as World War II movies. It centers around three veterans from different military branches who return to their mutual hometown after the second world war.
As they are reinstated to their former lives, they’re charged with making sense of what they proficient overseas and why their loved ones and the surrounding public don’t seem to understand their points of view. Harold Russell, an actual veteran who became disabled during World War II, was hired to play Homer’s character, even though he had no experience acting. His emotional performance won him an Oscar. It was the highest-ranking film in both the US and the UK and is the sixth most-engaged film of all time in the UK, with over 20 million tickets sold.
7. CITIZEN KANE (1941)
Orson Welles hit it out of his debut film’s efforts, often referred to as the best American film ever made. He produced, co-wrote, directed, and starred in this epic review of John Foster Kane’s life.
A group of reporters is trying to decode the last word ever uttered by Charles Foster Kane, the millionaire journal tycoon: “Rosebud.” The film starts with a newsreel describing Kane’s life for the people, and then from there, we have revealed flashbacks from Foster Kane’s life. As the reporters interrogate further, the viewers perceive a display of an enchanting man’s rise to fame and how he finally fell off the top of the world.
6. PATHS OF GLORY (1957)
Paths Of Glory is a masterpiece, without a doubt. Usually, a masterpiece is the pinnacle of a director’s career. But whenever we talk about Stanley Kubrick, we talk about a true genius. We’ve seen a lot of war movies in our life. When we first saw this movie, we didn’t expect it to touch us to an extent. After all, it was Kubrick’s first movie, but it fascinated us completely.
This is not only one of the greatest war films ever made, not only one of the greatest black & white films ever made, but it is also simply one of the greatest films ever made bar none. The film screams integrity in every way. In 1992, the film was considered “culturally, aesthetically significant and historically” by the Library of Congress and selected for retention in the United States National Film Registry.
5. DR. STRANGELOVE
Stanley Kubrick’s film, Dr. Strangelove, explores the story of an evil general who paves the way for nuclear slaughter in his distressful room filled with political elites and military leaders. This film, a real-life theme, makes us rethink problems from various angles and highlight our ignorance.
When nuclear destruction was a very genuine and possible issue during the height of paranoia, the movie makes us rethink the situation from an entirely different perspective. In this hot-line suspense comedy, nuclear war’s idiocy is satirized using the backdrop of an impending Cold War.
4. SCHINDLER’S LIST (1993)
Steven Spielberg infuses his signature cinematographic talent into Schindler’s List, harrowing research of the experience of the Holocaust. Filmed in black-and-white for respectful and elegant purposes, the haunting magnum is based on a real story, giving a view into humanity’s destructive power and the human spirit’s strength.
Focusing on a German business person in Poland, who staffs his factory with Jews to protect them, the movie explores brutal themes with deeply emotional poignancy. It was selected for twelve Academy Awards, winning seven, including Best Director, Best Picture, Best Original Score, and Best Adapted Screenplay, and won numerous other awards. The American Film Institute placed Schindler’s List 8th on its record of the 100 best American movies of all time.
3. CASABLANCA (1942)
Again, this may be a film you’ve known for at least a while. The old line (“Look at yourself here, children”) remains one of the most popular traditions. But did you know that the leading stars Ingrid Bergman and Humphrey Bogart, didn’t believe that this film would be as successful as it turned out to be? Starring Ingrid and Humphrey Bogart, it is a romantic and interesting story set in Casablanca, Morocco, during World War II.
Despite being produced in the 1940s, it is one of the most unplanned romantic dramas in history and tells the story of an American guest who meets his ex-girlfriend. This film contains the beauty of life that will live with you long after the credits roll.
2. IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE
Wonderful Life is an American Christmas comedy film directed and produced by Frank Capra in 1946, based on the story and pamphlet “Great Gift,” self-published by Philip Van Doren Stern 1943. It has a star named Jimmy Stewart as an aspiring adventurous artist traveling the world away from his small town and his loved ones.
When things don’t go as planned, he thinks he failed – until God intervened to teach him otherwise. We recommend you to watch this movie for the famous dance styles and the heart-touching end.
1. PSYCHO
Many Alfred Hitchcock movies are as entertaining as before the first survey, but Psycho is still the most affected among the audience. Stars Anthony Perkins and Norman Bates live in a poor house with their mother and see the motel he runs.
The motel is not looking at the visitor’s transactions, as the country was built to take travelers out of the building. But one stormy night, after Janet Leigh’s character explored Phoenix’s quick escape. Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho is probably the most terrifying and well-known feature in the series. Monochrome ferrets produce dark and sad tones.
Final Thoughts!
Over the last decades, black and white movies have been somewhat relinquished. Yet when it reaches up to cinematography’s history, the medium encapsulates numerous masterpieces and defines the movie genre today. From frightful to science fiction, drama to romance, monochrome traits have granted us some of cinema’s finest moments. That’s why we have filtered a list of ten of the best black-and-white movies of all time for you so that you must go through them and be pleased with the history of cinematography. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 25 | https://slate.com/culture/2020/11/mank-movie-accuracy-david-fincher-upton-sinclair-netflix.html | en | Mank movie accuracy: what’s fact and what’s fiction in David Fincher’s movie about the making of Citizen Kane. | [
"https://compote.slate.com/images/ebb3299e-e7e1-466f-8b1b-c390a77c744f.jpeg?crop=1560%2C1040%2Cx0%2Cy0",
"https://compote.slate.com/images/ebb3299e-e7e1-466f-8b1b-c390a77c744f.jpeg?crop=1560%2C1040%2Cx0%2Cy0",
"https://compote.slate.com/images/b77da965-65eb-4403-a0cc-0e186f069102.jpeg?crop=1560%2C1040%2Cx0%2Cy0... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/3vPajg96BL4?rel=0&enablejsapi=1"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Matthew Dessem"
] | 2020-11-18T19:39:57+00:00 | David Fincher’s movie about the making of Citizen Kane is a mix of truths, half-truths, and outright inventions. | en | /favicon.ico | Slate Magazine | https://slate.com/culture/2020/11/mank-movie-accuracy-david-fincher-upton-sinclair-netflix.html | Mank, the new movie from director David Fincher about Citizen Kane’s co-screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, wades waist-deep into two contentious moments in American history and starts throwing punches. First and foremost, it’s a movie about the writing of Citizen Kane, which spanned a couple of months in the spring and summer of 1940 and was briefly ground zero for the never-ending battle over auteurism. It’s also, rather unexpectedly, a movie about the 1934 California gubernatorial campaign of Upton Sinclair, which was briefly ground zero for the never-ending battle between labor and capital. Much of what’s on screen in both periods is more or less factual, but the screenplay, by Fincher’s late father, Jack Fincher, draws a connection between those two battles that required a few adjustments to the historical record. Here’s what’s true, what’s half-true, and what’s entirely invented.
Herman J. Mankiewicz in Hollywood
Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) began his literary career as a journalist and sometime playwright, a member of the Algonquin Round Table who served as the original theater critic for the New Yorker. He came West in 1926 to write for the movies and never really left, although he also never really came to terms with being a screenwriter. His ties to the New York literary scene were valuable during the transition to sound: Studios wanted playwrights who had experience writing dialogue, so Mankiewicz helped recruit East Coast journalists as part of what he called “the Herman J. Mankiewicz Fresh Air Fund for Writers.” According to Ben Hecht’s 1954 memoir, A Child of the Century, Mankiewicz sent him a telegram reading:
Will you accept three hundred dollars to work for Paramount Pictures. All expenses paid. The three hundred is peanuts. Millions are to be grabbed out here and your only competition is idiots. Don’t let this get around.
In Mank, a version of the telegram is sent to Charles Lederer (Joseph Cross) in 1930 and another character remarks that Herman has been sending them to “anyone who can rub three words together,” but I couldn’t find any evidence this happened in real life. Whatever his telegrams said, Herman helped assemble a murderer’s row of East Coast talent at Paramount, including his younger brother Joseph L. Mankiewicz (Tom Pelphrey), whose career eclipsed Herman’s own over the course of the 1930s. The most outrageous incident in this section of Mank, a scene in which Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) tearfully asks his employees to take a temporary 50 percent pay cut during FDR’s bank holiday, really happened, and Mayer really did promise to make his workers whole when the banks reopened, but never bothered to follow through.
In Hollywood, Mankiewicz quickly became legendary for his scathing wit and self-destructive behavior. He was an alcoholic and a compulsive gambler—Mank shows him betting Eddie Cantor (Derek Petropolis) $1,000 on a coin toss—and his addictions came with the usual problems in tow. Over the course of the 1930s, he drank, gambled, and insulted himself out of friendships and jobs, leaving his long-suffering wife, Sara (Tuppence Middleton), to pick up the pieces. Mank only has a couple of flashbacks that show Herman Mankiewicz at the studios, which means there’s a lot of time compression at play—he didn’t coin all of his wittiest retorts on a single day at Paramount in 1930—but although you could argue with some of the film’s characterizations of studio executives as uniformly dimwitted (and Slate already has), the people and places in these scenes of the movie are more or less the right people in the right places.
Upton Sinclair’s Campaign for Governor
Mank takes its cues from Citizen Kane wherever it can, so naturally it has a Rosebud-style mystery at its center: Why did Herman J. Mankiewicz write a script containing cruel caricatures of William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies, both of whom he had known socially? It’s not necessarily a great question to hang a movie on—Herman J. Mankiewicz’s life was defined by hostility laundered through wit—but Mank finds an answer in the 1934 California gubernatorial race, and it’s here that the film’s relationship with history becomes more dubious (and more interesting).
Upton Sinclair had become a household name in 1906 for writing The Jungle, a novel about the meatpacking industry that helped spark health and safety reforms, and by the time by the time he moved to California in the 1920s, he was the country’s most prominent socialist. In 1933 a Santa Monica businessman convinced him to run for the governorship as a Democrat. Sinclair, who was not in the habit of thinking small, laid out his plans for the state in a short book, modestly titled I, Governor of California, and How I Ended Poverty: A True Story of the Future.
Sign up for the Slate Culture newsletter
The best of movies, TV, books, music, and more, delivered to your inbox three times a week.
Thanks for signing up! You can manage your newsletter subscriptions at any time.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again, or manage all your newsletter subscriptions here .
Email address:
Send me updates about Slate special offers. By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms.
Sinclair’s plan was enough to terrify the state’s business leaders when he won the Democratic primary, and they mobilized to crush him. In the general election, Republican incumbent Frank Merriam defeated Sinclair 49 percent to 38 percent, with Progressive candidate Raymond L. Haight, who ran as a centrist, sucking up another 13 percent and possibly spoiling Sinclair.
Those events are the political backdrop Mank is playing with, and they’re all true, but Herman J. Mankiewicz’s relationship to those events seems to be Jack Fincher’s invention. Mankiewicz’s politics were complicated but mostly skewed conservative; Mank shows a little of this but downplays how public it was. There’s a scene, for instance, showing Herman refusing to join the Screen Writers Guild in a private conversation with Joseph, but much of the dialogue actually comes from a full-page ad Herman took out in Variety taunting the would-be unionists, “You have nothing to lose but your brains.” But if Mankiewicz was no unionist, he wasn’t a fascist, either. Late in the film, a character reveals that Mankiewicz spent the 1930s helping refugees from fascism. This is true, although he didn’t save an entire village, as Mank suggests. According to Sydney Ladensohn Stern’s biography The Brothers Mankiewicz, he quietly sponsored refugees, helped them find work, and gave generously to relief organizations throughout the 1930s. And in 1933, Mankiewicz wrote and attempted to make The Mad Dog of Europe, an anti-Nazi film whose targets were so thinly veiled that the villain was named “Adolf Mitler.” On the other hand, he was an isolationist who thought the United States stood no chance against the German war machine, going so far as to declare himself “an ultra-Lindbergh.”
I couldn’t find any evidence Mankiewicz supported Sinclair, much less that he carried a grudge for years over the campaign, and it seems likely he would have opposed him on the basis of prose style alone. Still, you can’t pattern a movie after Citizen Kane unless your protagonist has an unhealable wound, so Mank seems to have made this one up.
MGM’s Fake Newsreels
California’s right wing staged an all-hands-on-deck effort to stop Upton Sinclair from becoming governor, and that included newspapermen and studio heads. Hearst and Harry Chandler railed against Sinclair in their papers and Joseph Schenck, president of Twentieth Century Pictures, announced that he’d move his business to Florida if Sinclair were elected. Louis B. Mayer, state chairman of the Republican Party at the time, followed Schenck’s lead, hinting he’d move MGM to Florida, and did all he could to convince his employees their jobs were on the line. Mayer came up with the idea of fundraising from his workers, asking every employee to donate a day’s salary to Frank Merriam’s campaign. (“Asking” is not really accurate: Rank-and-file employees simply had their “donations” deducted from their paychecks.)
All of that is shown in Mank in one way or another, but the Finchers steal a little valor to put Herman Mankiewicz in the middle of the fight. In The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair’s Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics, author Greg Mitchell identifies several writers who refused to donate to Merriam: Sam Marx, Frances Goodrich, and Albert Hackett at MGM as well as John Wexley and John Howard Lawson at Columbia, but not Herman Mankiewicz. (The scene in Mank in which Irving Thalberg attempts to talk Mankiewicz into a token donation seems to be modeled after Wexley’s argument with Harry Cohn.)
Hollywood didn’t just support Merriam financially. It also staged a sophisticated disinformation campaign, and it’s here that Mank strays the furthest from the historical record. In the movie, Mankiewicz makes an offhand comment to Irving Thalberg that inspires Thalberg to produce a series of phony newsreels to help crush Sinclair. A friend of Mankiewicz’s, test shot director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane), leaps at the chance to step up to real directing and shoots a series of staged “man-in-the-street” interviews in which well-dressed white people explain why they are voting for Merriam, while foreigners, workmen, and Tom Joad types explain that they’re voting for Sinclair.
After Sinclair loses the election, Metcalf has an attack of conscience—he’s also despondent over a Parkinson’s diagnosis—and kills himself on election night, despite Mankiewicz’s attempt to intervene. Later, Mankiewicz, already beating himself up for inspiring Thalberg, discovers that Hearst helped fund the newsreels. It’s straightforward, thematically apt, and gives the protagonist exactly the motivation the screenplay’s structure requires. It’s also a load of hooey. Not the newsreels: Thalberg really produced them, and they really ran in theaters all over the state, where they were presented to audiences as actual interviews. Here’s the first film in what became a series of three.
Shelly Metcalf, however, is an invention. Thalberg’s fake newsreels were directed by Felix Feist Jr., who, like Metcalf, was a test shot director looking to move up at MGM. In real life, however, his conscience seems to have been untroubled and his ploy worked: He directed short films throughout the 1930s before stepping up to features in the 1940s, moving on to television in the 1950s. He died of natural causes in 1965. Louis B. Mayer really did throw an election night party at the Trocadero, as seen in the movie, but if Herman Mankiewicz attended, it doesn’t seem to have been documented. And although Mankiewicz would bet on anything, none of his biographers mention a bet with Mayer or Thalberg over the election results. (One thing they do mention is that Joseph L. Mankiewicz wrote a series of anti–Upton Sinclair propaganda for the radio, so if Herman felt strongly about the disinformation campaign, he had targets closer to home than Hearst.) Essentially, Mank paints an accurate picture of the forces that crushed Upton Sinclair’s gubernatorial campaign, then rearranges things so that the election results break Herman J. Mankiewicz’s heart.
William Randolph Hearst’s Parties
The Mankiewicz family got to know newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his mistress, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), through Davies’ nephew Charles Lederer, and one of the film’s highlights is its lavish recreation of Hearst holding court at his ludicrous castle in San Simeon. The Mankiewiczes really were there as guests several times, and Hearst really did value Mankiewicz for his dazzling conversation. The details of life at Hearst Castle are also correct and so are the broad outlines of Mankieicz’s time there: His drinking slowly made him persona non grata until he was no longer welcome. Mank also gets Mankiewicz’s friendship with Marion Davies more or less right: They bonded over their shared alcoholism, although according to Sara Mankiewicz, Herman mostly felt sorry for her. His final scene at Hearst castle, in which he pitches a Citizen Kane prototype that combines Hearst’s actions in the 1934 election with Don Quixote, almost certainly never happened, because there’s no evidence Herman cared about the Sinclair campaign. Finally, Mankiewicz did once say, after being violently ill, “Don’t worry … the white wine came up with the fish,” but he wasn’t at Hearst Castle. He was at a dinner party thrown by producer Arthur Hornblow Jr., who was a notorious stickler for etiquette.
Marion Davies
Outside of San Simeon, Mank gives us enough glimpses of Marion Davies’ career as an actress to make it clear that she was much more talented than Susan Alexander in Citizen Kane. She became Hearst’s mistress around 1916, and in 1918 Hearst formed a production company, Cosmopolitan Pictures, to produce her films. Cosmopolitan didn’t just have Marion Davies—it also had Hearst’s publicity apparatus at its disposal, plus first dibs on any story material Hearst published, and the company easily secured distribution deals with studios. Although Davies’ gifts were in light comedy, Hearst preferred her in period dramas, and, as seen in Mank, wanted Irving Thalberg to let her star in Marie Antoinette. When she didn’t get the part, Hearst moved Cosmopolitan, and Marion Davies, and Marion Davies’ 11-room bungalow on the studio lot, from MGM to Warner Bros.
This is all shown in Mank, but Fincher fudges the chronology a little to force an Upton Sinclair connection. In the film, Mankiewicz interrupts Davies’ exit from MGM in a last-ditch effort to stop Thalberg’s phony newsreels from being released. In reality, the first newsreel hit theaters on Oct. 19, 1934, Davies signed her contract with Warner Bros. on Oct. 31, Sinclair lost the election on Nov. 6, and Davies didn’t actually leave MGM until Jan. 1, 1935. As for Davies making a trip to Victorville to try to convince Herman Mankiewicz to shelve Citizen Kane, it’s vanishingly unlikely. Although the script seems to have made its way to Hearst and his lawyers through Davies’ nephew Charles Lederer, in her memoir, The Times We Had: Life With William Randolph Hearst, she claims she never even watched the finished film.
The Authorship of Citizen Kane
The heart of Mank is set during the months Mankiewicz spent at a ranch in Victorville, California, working on a draft of Citizen Kane while recovering from injuries sustained in a car crash. The authorship of Citizen Kane has been a subject of dispute since before a single frame was shot, and given the film’s reputation, a bunch of people claim paternity.
There are countless different versions of the story of its creation, but they all agree on the basic setup. In September of 1939, Mankiewicz tried to catch a ride to New York with screenwriter Tommy Phipps, who, distracted, ran the car off the road, breaking Mankiewicz’s leg in three places. During Mankiewicz’s long and painful convalescence, Orson Welles hired him to write a few scripts for the Mercury Theatre radio show, and the two men began a fruitful collaboration. By December the two men settled on the idea of writing something about the life of a newspaper baron based on Hearst. Story conferences continued through January, and in the late winter, Mankiewicz decamped for the ranch in Victorville to write a rough draft. He was accompanied by Welles’ one-time Mercury Theater compatriot John Houseman, a secretary named Rita Alexander, and a German nurse to care for his leg. The ranch was dry, but Mankiewicz’s bottles of scotch laced with Seconal were probably invented. (According to Pauline Kael, Houseman brought some sort of drug intended to combat Mankiewicz’s alcoholism, but it didn’t work. Houseman recounts taking Mankiewicz to a local bar for a single scotch each night, which was quite a production on crutches.) Since writing a screenplay isn’t the most cinematic activity, Fincher changes Alexander’s husband—in real life, a recently arrived European refugee, according to Houseman—into an RAF pilot, which gives Mankiewicz a chance to put his foot in his mouth espousing isolationist views, but the basic conditions under which Mankeiwicz wrote his draft of Citizen Kane are pretty much correct.
When it comes to the actual writing, though, the different accounts of what happened become as prismatic as the life of Charles Foster Kane. There’s no question that Mankiewicz signed a contract giving up any claim to credit. There’s no question he later decided he wanted to be credited, argued with Welles about it, and eventually got his screen credit. But who actually wrote the movie? It depends who you ask.
If you asked Herman J. Mankiewicz, he’d tell you he was the sole author. Although neither he nor Welles attended the Academy Award ceremony where they shared the Oscar for Best Screenplay—the only award Kane got—he later said that his acceptance speech would have been, “I am very happy to accept this award in Mr. Welles’ absence, because the script was written in Mr. Welles’ absence.” That’s the position Pauline Kael argued in her 1971 New Yorker essay “Raising Kane,” for which she interviewed John Houseman and Rita Alexander but not Orson Welles or any of his assistants. Alexander told her Welles “didn’t write (or dictate) one line of the shooting script of Citizen Kane.” Then there’s the version Orson Welles told in 1972, for Peter Bogdanovich’s Esquire article “The Kane Mutiny.” Written in response to “Raising Kane” with input from Welles, it spends nearly as much time demolishing Kael’s journalism as it does on the creation of Citizen Kane. In that telling, there were two first drafts, as Welles explained:
We’d started to waste too much time haggling. So, after mutual agreements on the story line and character, Mank went off with Houseman and did his version, while I stayed in Hollywood and wrote mine. At the end, naturally, I was the one who was making the picture, after all—who had to make the decisions. I used what I wanted of Mank’s and, rightly or wrongly, kept what I liked of my own.
And then there’s the account John Houseman gives in his 1972 memoir, Run-Through. Houseman was there to serve as an editor, as someone to bounce ideas off, and above all to keep Herman sober and working, but his version attempts to carve out his own contributions primarily through the use of the first-person plural:
We started with the image of a man—a giant, a tycoon, a glamour figure, a controller of public opinion, a legend in his own lifetime … As we talked we asked each other how this man had got to be the way he was, made the choices he did. In the process we discovered what persons were associated with him, we learned what brought them together and what he did with them and to them over the years. In deciding who was qualified, personally and historically, to tell his story and reflect his image, in selecting the “prisms” which would most clearly reveal the parts from which we must finally create a whole, we found the dramatic structure of the film gradually asserting itself.
Finally, there are the extant drafts of the screenplay, which Robert L. Carringer analyzed in a celebrated 1978 article, “The Scripts of Citizen Kane.” Carringer’s conclusion was that Mankiewicz was the primary author of the Victorville drafts, which stuck much more closely to the facts of Hearst’s life than the final film, but also that Welles’ revisions and contributions were “not only substantial but definitive.” He also dug up a telegram Houseman sent Mankiewicz in June 1940 that makes it quite obvious that Welles was heavily involved in the development of the shooting script (and, furthermore, that Houseman was writing material as well, though it’s anybody’s guess if it was used).
The general critical consensus these days is that although there’s no evidence to substantiate Welles’ claim of having written his own first draft independently, his contributions transformed Mankiewicz’s script “from a solid basis for a story into an authentic plan for a masterpiece,” as Carringer put it. That is not how it happens in Mank, which essentially follows Pauline Kael’s version of events. In some ways the Finchers go even further than Kael—and David Fincher has said in interviews that his father’s original script was even more of an anti-Welles broadside. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 27 | https://ww25.soap2day.day/citizen-kane-soap2day/ | en | Citizen Kane | [
"https://ww25.soap2day.day/wp-content/plugins/wp-postratings/images/stars_flat_png/rating_on.png",
"https://ww25.soap2day.day/wp-content/plugins/wp-postratings/images/stars_flat_png/rating_on.png",
"https://ww25.soap2day.day/wp-content/plugins/wp-postratings/images/stars_flat_png/rating_on.png",
"https://ww25... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2023-12-21T09:55:48+00:00 | Newspaper magnate, Charles Foster Kane is taken from his mother as a boy and made the ward of a rich industrialist. As a result, every well-meaning, tyrannical or self-destructive move he makes for the rest of his life appears in some way to be a reaction to that deeply wounding event. | en | /wp-content/uploads/2024/06/favicon-1.png | Soap2Day - Free Movies Watch Online, SoapToday | https://ww25.soap2day.day/citizen-kane-soap2day/ | Newspaper magnate, Charles Foster Kane is taken from his mother as a boy and made the ward of a rich industrialist. As a result, every well-meaning, tyrannical or self-destructive move he makes for the rest of his life appears in some way to be a reaction to that deeply wounding event. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 84 | https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-citizen-kane-was-booed-at-the-1942-oscars/ | en | Why ‘Citizen Kane’ was booed at the 1942 Oscars | [
"https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/themes/far-out-magazine/img/newsletter.gif",
"https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/themes/far-out-magazine/logo/faroutmagazine.co.uk/minimal-logo.svg?ver=1.1.4",
"https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/themes/far-out-magazine/logo/faroutmagazine.co.uk/plain-logo.svg?... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/8dxh3lwdOFw?feature=oembed"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Scott Campbell"
] | 2024-02-27T03:00:00+00:00 | 'Citizen Kane' is unquestionably one of the greatest movies ever made, but it still got booed at the Academy Awards for its inspirations. | en | /favicon.ico | Far Out Magazine | https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-citizen-kane-was-booed-at-the-1942-oscars/ | It’s not often that a directorial debut goes down in history as one of the greatest movies ever made, but Orson Welles probably expected that exact result when he sent Citizen Kane out into the world.
Welles had already gained fame and notoriety by his early 20s after a distinguished stage career was followed by his legendary radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds, leaving him fully aware of his immeasurable talent at such a young age.
Co-writing, producing, directing, and starring in his very first feature film, he was brimming with the confidence bordering on arrogance that would ultimately define the entirety of his time in Hollywood. Of course, he was correct to be so cocky, with Citizen Kane releasing a month after he’d turned 26.
It was far from a box office bonanza, though, barely recouping its budget twice over during its theatrical run before it encountered the wrath of one of the most powerful men on the planet. Welles went to great lengths to ensure William Randolph Hearst’s influence on Charles Foster Kane was kept under wraps, and looking at what happened in the aftermath; it’s easy to see why.
The media magnate banned any newspaper he owned from advertising or reviewing the film, while any mention of the title was outright prohibited. Launching a libellous smear campaign against Welles, Hearst even considered legal action for Citizen Kane, deriving so many of its story beats directly from his own life.
It didn’t prevent the epic drama from becoming an awards season favourite, with nine Academy Award nominations including ‘Best Picture’, ‘Best Director’, ‘Best Actor’, and ‘Best Screenplay’ being handed its way. However, not only did Citizen Kane emerge from the ceremony with a solitary win for the latter category, but it was reportedly booed out of the building every time its name was read out.
The caveat is that the only recorded account of the audience vociferously booing Citizen Kane nine times over during the 14th edition of the Oscars came directly from Welles himself, and he wasn’t even in attendance. That being said, the trades at the time offered further details on why it’s hardly a far-fetched tale.
In the March 1942 edition of Variety, it was suggested that John Ford’s How Green Was My Valley was viewed as the standout candidate based on its director’s status as a firmly established part of the industry hierarchy, and it would ultimately scoop four trophies on the night, pipping Citizen Kane to ‘Best Picture’ and ‘Best Director’ in the process.
It was also intimated that Hearst’s far-reaching influence could have been another key factor, positing that the only reason Welles’ film received so many nods was as a thinly-veiled apology for how he was “treated and maligned by the Hearst papers,” furthering the belief Academy voters found it undeserving of so many nominations.
Intriguingly, Welles’ prickly reputation may have also played a part. Extras were allowed to vote for ‘Best Picture’, ‘Best Song’, and the four top acting prizes at the time, which meant there were literally thousands of people who held a stake in the outcome. Furthering that assessment, it was noted how “it was patent that the mob didn’t like the guy personally,” which may have contributed to both the booing and Citizen Kane‘s poor showing. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 72 | https://www.ipl.org/essay/Synopsis-Of-The-Movie-Citizen-Kane-37680AE2B48B2EC5 | en | Synopsis Of The Movie 'Citizen Kane' | [
"https://assets.ipl.org/1.17/images/logos/ipl/logo-ipl.png",
"https://assets.ipl.org/1.17/images/icons/ipl/magnifying-glass.svg",
"https://assets.ipl.org/1.17/images/icons/user.png",
"https://assets.ipl.org/1.17/images/logos/ipl/logo-ipl.svg"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"ipl.org"
] | 2023-06-22T23:09:23+00:00 | The movie “Citizen Kane” directed by Orson Welles is an interesting movie about a young boy and his struggle of life. It is about Charles Foster Kane a young... | en | https://www.ipl.org/essay/Synopsis-Of-The-Movie-Citizen-Kane-37680AE2B48B2EC5 | Charles Foster Kane Research Paper
622 Words | 3 Pages
Charles Foster Kane died from mysterious causes, however his last dying word was, “Rosebud”. I interviewed different individuals who were affiliated with Charles Foster Kane to find out what this word meant. However, I was stumped in my investigation of the word, until I rummaged around at Charles Kane palace and found an antique of his. It was a sled that had the word Rosebud printed on it, I made the conclusion this was what Mr. Kane was referring too. However, what does it have to do with him, and how does it relate to him in any specific way?
His entire trip was a journey for him to find himself, and I think his bigger journey is when he left home and decided to travel and survive without giving notice to anyone. He felt misunderstood by his parents, and maybe he thought by leaving and surviving on his own that would somehow show them how he thinks and feels. He also had pent up feelings about his parents from the past that maybe he was trying to work through by leaving. Despite the fact that he dies, his ultimate goal was to convey some sort of art in fleeing with no money or job and attempting to survive on your own as a young adult. People hear his story and want to do what he did.
How Did Citizen Kane Change
717 Words | 3 Pages
The Film Citizen Kane was a groundbreaking film in the 1940’s, the way Orson Wells depicts his film with different lighting, cinematography, choice of camera shots and mise-en-scene throughout this movie truly showed the masterpiece that this film is. In the Film Citizen Kane, it was the first movie that went against true Hollywood cinema by introducing flashbacks throughout the movie to show us how Charles Foster Kane changes throughout the movie. Throughout this movie the audience can see how Charles Foster Kane undergoes a variety of physical and emotional changes from when he was just a young boy all the way until his unfortunate death. Power, that’s all that Kane wanted in the start of the film. In the beginning of the film Kane gets ownership of the struggling New York Daily Inquirer, Kane suggests that he wanted to use journalism to apply to the public and protect the interest of ordinary people.
How Did John Adams Contribute To Society
965 Words | 4 Pages
He wanted to be successful in life for himself and his
What Does Rosebured Mean
1427 Words | 6 Pages
From the moment the film starts it is clear from the "No Trespassing" sign that the director is taking us somewhere we are not welcome. The close ups of the chain link fence and the iron gates are further evidence of the inaccessibility of the castle in the distance. The images of the emptiness in the gondolas and a decaying golf course suggest that this place was built by someone of wealth. Then we are introduced to a single word “Rosebud” having just tuned into the movie I had no clue what the word means. From there we are thrown into an ocean drowning down memory lane the moment we are introduce to Charles Kane, it’s always from someone else perspective that gives us a distorted view of this man.
Citizen Kane's Citizen Kane: The Classic Hollywood Industry
389 Words | 2 Pages
There are many things that make “Citizen Kane” considered as possibly one of the greatest films every made; to the eyes of the passive audience this film may not seem the most amazing, most people being accustomed to the classical Hollywood style, but to the audience with an eye for the complex, “Citizen Kane” breaks the traditional Hollywood mold and forges its own path for the better. Exposition is one of the most key features of a film, it’s meant introduce important characters and give the audience relevant details and and dutifully suppress knowledge in turn. “Citizen Kane” does not follow this Classic Hollywood style exposition, instead going above and beyond to open the film with revealing as little information as possible and confuse/intrigue
This all spans from him wanting to get his supposed girlfriend Dawn a Christmas present. Towards the end of the story, we learn that Dawn is living with another guy, possibly her new boyfriend. This is where the theme of loss begins to come in. Not all has he lost is his girlfriend, he has lost relations with his family it seems as well. “My parents.
Citizen Kane: A Cinematic Classic Hollywood Cinema
585 Words | 3 Pages
Citizen Kane by Orson Welles is a cinematic classic, released in 1941. Citizen Kane challenged traditional narrative and technical elements of classic Hollywood cinema. Kane was narrated by several people that include their take on Kane’s life. The story unfolds by many flashbacks and is told by different perspectives over the years through different narrations. Charles Foster Kane was a millionaire, head of newspapers and died saying “rosebud”.
Citizen Kane Mise En Scene Analysis
794 Words | 4 Pages
Props are also critical to the close of the film,Citizen Kane, as the elusive meaning of Rosebud is brought to light by the flames of the incinerator set up to get rid of 'junk '. This single act of burning the sled named 'Rosebud ' speaks volumes to how we may pass judgment on something we see as 'junk ' but on further examination- this sled was actually a symbol to so much more to what drove Kane and
Charles Foster Kane And The American Dream
1366 Words | 6 Pages
(Citizen Kane, 1941) Kane’s parents used the power of money as an accessory for giving him away to a billionaire. Since that day, the protagonist went through a traumatizing experience, insecurity and redisposition due to his parents’ actions, which marked the beginning of his tortuous need, to be loved. This unreturned love created a sense of fear and mistrust to love something or someone, only to experience abandonment again was something Kane never got a chance to learn. Citizen Kane broke all the rules because of Welles, there were no
Citizen Kane is the life story of a powerful newspaper magnate, Charles Foster Kane. It is a fictionalized biography of the ruthless publishing baron, William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951). In actuality, the characters in the movie are composites, drawn from the lives of several famous American tycoons, but Hearst was the most obvious. Photography Gregg Toland, the cinematographer for Citizen Kane, considered the film the high point in his career & thought he might ‘learn something’ from the boy genius (Welles).
Citizen Kane: Classic Hollywood Film
510 Words | 3 Pages
Citizen Kane challenged the traditional narrative and technical elements of classic Hollywood cinema mainly in the area of sound. Orson Welles was ahead of his time when he created his works of manipulating sound to transfer meaning in the film Citizen Kane. Welles used concealed hanging microphones to obtain different levels of sound throughout the film. The manner, in which the story was told, from Kane’s death flashbacked to his life of success and ultimate failure, was also a new style of storytelling for films. Welles also used symbolism with his last mumbling word “Rosebud.”
Essay On Symbolism In Citizen Kane
1306 Words | 6 Pages
The use of symbolism and expressionism is paramount to both the narrative and to the theme. Meaning of some of the symbols are; • Mirrors: The mirrors in the movie Citizen Kane shows how Kane has different series of mirrors in his life in which his image has duplicated infinitely. Metaphorically, these mirrors continuously showed us different versions of Kane. • Puzzles: The jigsaw puzzle shows how Susan Alexander used to play with them very often not merely for fun but also as a way to fulfill her unyielding existence with Kane. The jigsaw puzzle shows how all pieces always don’t fit in properly, similarly, Susan and Kane’s personalities were very different that created unresolved issues and conflicts in their lives.
Citizen Kane Opening Scene Analysis
1571 Words | 7 Pages
Directed by Orson Welles, the 1941 motion picture “Citizen Kane” is the story of the rise and fall of a great, influential man. The opening scenes of “Citizen Kane” are quite different from what follows during the rest of the film. Fading in and out of different landscapes instilled mystery. This mysterious vibe was carried on during Charles Foster Kane’s death through the use of shadows, quiet music, and close up shots. Isolated in his vast empire of a home, Kane uttered only one word before he passed: “rosebud.”
Rashomon And Citizen Kane Analysis
2098 Words | 9 Pages
In this essay I will be comparing the themes and the narrative techniques used in both films. Starting off with the film “Citizen Kane” as mentioned it is a story of a millionaire, Charles Foster Kane. It begins with Kane’s death and speaks a single word: “Rosebud”. The reporters in the hunt to know | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 7 | https://www.filmsinreview.com/post/on-his-birthday-why-orson-welles-citizen-kane-is-still-the-best-movie-ever-made-by-david-rosler | en | ON HIS BIRTHDAY: WHY ORSON WELLES' "CITIZEN KANE" IS STILL THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE by David Rosler | [
"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43ba2_28e1b0fdf80e4784a9418e6b6b16b833~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_645,h_105,al_c,lg_1,q_85,enc_auto/e43ba2_28e1b0fdf80e4784a9418e6b6b16b833~mv2.png",
"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9104e8_c5b004ab256844048936f8d7184c2024~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_147,h_83,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,blur... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"FIR Reviews"
] | 2021-05-06T13:17:47.617000+00:00 | The production year was 1940. The movie was released in 1941. The efficiency and artistic quality of the Hollywood RKO studio machine was at the top of its power. The Co-writer, Producer, Director and wunderkind visionary was Orson Welles, who was only 25 years old when he made the film. This seems astonishing but only out-of-context: 2 years earlier he panicked the entire nation with his terrifying simulation of a live, on-air radio broadcast of the earth being invaded by Martians. So realistic | en | Films in Review | https://www.filmsinreview.com/post/on-his-birthday-why-orson-welles-citizen-kane-is-still-the-best-movie-ever-made-by-david-rosler | The production year was 1940. The movie was released in 1941. The efficiency and artistic quality of the Hollywood RKO studio machine was at the top of its power. The Co-writer, Producer, Director and wunderkind visionary was Orson Welles, who was only 25 years old when he made the film. This seems astonishing but only out-of-context: 2 years earlier he panicked the entire nation with his terrifying simulation of a live, on-air radio broadcast of the earth being invaded by Martians. So realistic and effective was that radio Trick or Treat show for Halloween in 1938 that laws were enacted so that no one could ever do it again. And before that, Welles had conquered the New York stage with a string of hits while most New York theater producers and directors often had only one hit in their entire careers, if that.
For many years Citizen Kane was regarded as unarguably the finest American motion picture ever made, but somehow, in the last few years, there appears to be some kind of determination toward taking Kane off the top. This can be a nasty business, and when the herd mentality goes sour and nasty, as seems to be the cycle, they will eat anyone alive for the gamesmanship of the act. Rotten Tomatoes, a movie review website which averages movie reviews from up and down the spectrum, made news when it managed to dredge up an old bad review - one bad review - that took Kane off the 100% list and in some cold juggling of the numbers put a Paddington Bear movie on top of Kane. Maybe this is what happens when an outfit is a repository of over 1,000 reviewers and calculates the quality of classic motion pictures based on an average of reviewers, good and bad. It sounds like an impressive approach at first glance, but it's a nonsensical approach to movie reviewing, because, in-essence, it assumes Roger Ebert would have been equal to the hypothetical reviewer of the fictional Nebraska Post Examiner Gazette; you don't compare proven, thoughtful and insightful experts who have made motion picture analysis and assessment their entire lives with people who simply voice part-time opinions outside of their non-movie day jobs. It's absurd and damaging to the posterity of the art.
Several years ago, Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo inexplicably rose to the top in one list, overtaking Kane and again, this was reported with some kind of perplexing glee, as though this was a moment of celebration. While somewhat interesting, Vertigo is nevertheless a dreary and confused, slow-moving mess with fairly standard cinematic eye, average performances and on occasion a few embarrassingly obvious camera tricks; a movie that was mercilessly panned by critics when it came out and was low on everyone's list until it somehow shot to the top very recently. There are too many reasons for this event to nail down one, including a possible sudden societal shift from normal people talking about a sick character (Kane) and a modern audience relating to one (Vertigo). It is, of course, always in the mix that the recent tendency to try to take Citizen Kane down may simply be chalked up to the possibility that Kane is simply too good with which to compete for today's generally poor movie directors, so they put Vertigo on top so the top spot more resembles their own substandard offerings with a venerable name attached. This might be the answer for one list, because herd anxiety over competing with a genius usually leaves the genius struggling against the crush of the jealous crowd, as indeed was Welles for most of his career.
But Citizen Kane, this reviewer/filmmaker is happy to assure you, remains, in the aggregate, the finest motion picture ever created. As well it should be. You know the history and ability of the creative mind behind it all. But the entire creative ensemble of Citizen Kane was at its industry peak at that window-of-opportunity moment. The majority of the other lead and supporting actors came from Welles' own New York radio Mercury Theater who were the best of their time and trained under Welles; all were immensely talented from the start and learned well under their young genius director.
Cinematographer Gregg Toland was regarded as the finest cameraman of his day and between he and his young maverick director, re-defined how movies looked on the screen. To this day, Citizen Kane remains a foundational example of the pinnacle of the cinematographer's art.
Composer Bernard Herrmann was another young actual artistic genius who, in the late 1930's, connected with Welles on radio. Herrmann wrote his first film score when he created the music for Kane and Herrmann would go on to be regarded by most film aficionados as the finest film composer to this very day. Herrmann's brash, relentlessly American score in the upbeat moments of Kane, and his brooding low tones, with unconventional orchestral arrangements for the equally-brooding on-screen moments of Kane were entirely unique to motion pictures in 1941. Like Welles, Herrmann wanted to re-invent his medium, and Herrmann bucked everything film music had established by 1941, which up to that point was based on scores with large, rich, swelling vibrato strings mimicking the romantic styles of the Vienna concert hall, which made sense considering many of the Hollywood movie composers up to that point literally came from Vienna. Just as Welles and Toland re-defined the look of the movies, in a seeming instant young Bernard Herrmann re-defined forever how movies would sound and, more importantly, how movies would emotionally feel to the audience; an artistic conviction he would continue for the rest of his life.
The film is thick with endless magnificent visual effects to tell its grand-scale tome and the crew handling the matte paintings, scenic miniatures, rear projection and superimpositions were none other than the by-then-well-versed visual effects crew (minus Willis O'Brien's animation-specific pals) from RKO's King Kong, made in 1933, a film which astonished the world with its visual virtuosity upon its premier, just as Kane did, 8 years later, in 1941.
Indeed, even if Citizen Kane was not the greatest movie ever made, it surely would remain the greatest movie accomplishment on its union budget ever created, and in this regard, Citizen Kane is nothing short of entirely miraculous for its time. Kane, a Hollywood union film, was made for only $839,727.00. In today's numbers, when movies for TV are made for a few million, most average TV episodes are between $1 million - to - $2 million, national commercial spots cost upwards of $300,00.00 to produce, and movie budgets from major studios usually start at around $70 million, Citizen Kane, as a union film, in today's dollars would have cost an approximately astonishingly low $13, 130,700.00 ($13 million-plus), yet Kane looks like the most expensive movie of its day. And be sure, no other $800,000.00 movie from that day looked fractionally near as huge as Kane. 1940's The Grapes of Wrath and 1944's Laura, both fine movies and made for approximately the same budget each, look not remotely near the scope and nowhere near the visual artistry of Citizen Kane.
Citizen Kane is what it is not for money spent, but because it was a collaboration of artistic geniuses led by the most impressive dramatic genius of his time. The very notion that such a spectacle on a modest budget could be produced by a 25-year-old with no prior motion picture experience whatsoever, let alone producing, at a time of simple but cumbersome and expensive antique cameras, with no internet from which to learn and books all very basic, at a huge union Hollywood studio would be, without this singular example, regarded as entirely beyond the remotest possibility. It would be a total and complete fantasy. Yet Welles produced Citizen Kane as well as acted in and directed it, and in so doing, created a staggering masterpiece.
And then there is Welles' own performance as the title character. A plainly resentful Academy denied him one of the most deserved Best Actor Oscars in motion picture history. As we see Kane in different ages in his life, from brash young maverick (Welles playing himself, perhaps?) to stiff, reclusive old tyrant (very much the reverse of what Welles would become in his actual old age), Welles' performance is entirely Oscar-worthy by any standard and almost beyond comprehension for an actor directing himself for the first time in front of a camera at the impossibly tender age of 25. If nothing else, Welles' on-screen sense of genuine older-age maturity is mind-bending. Over the years, the many people who did not previously know of Welles' age when he made Kane, upon viewing Kane and being informed of Welles' age by this reviewer/filmmaker, were and continue to be universally stunned by the revelation. It just doesn't seem possible, yet there it is.
Like the movie's mystery of Rosebud, the movie itself has a mystery. Why has it endured and remained so incomprehensibly fresh and original - as so many experts have correctly noted - after not simply all these years, but after all these decades? At the risk of pointing the way for imitators who might, in lesser efforts, shave off the film's edges over time with poor imitations, I have a suggestion as to that answer; as to why Citizen Kane remains so powerful, so vibrant and fresh.
The answer may well be that never before and never after have two cinematic aesthetics collided so powerfully and masterfully on-screen. The film's complex and darkly atmospheric photographic quality; the stylized, classic compositions; the plays with distortion of light and reflection and the elegant artificiality of the old-school visual effects techniques, in other words - the powerful visual qualities - ladled heavily onto the foundation of the story, give the film an intimate and excessively dreamlike quality. Yet the story itself is a hard-bitten, razor-edged and merciless tale told on a gigantic scale. And these two diametrically-opposed dramatic aesthetics collide with amazing harmony insomuch as the story is told in flashbacks, memories - which can be much like dreams, if you will - in which Kane is recalled sometimes with sentimental affection, other times startling pathos and other times as a sinister, barbaric monster controlling the lives of all around him; the perfect stuff of dreams and nightmares, perfectly translated onto the screen. These two dramatic harmonies of story and picture being brought together by a true and mesmerizing genius discovering for the first time his sudden, passionate love for the ultimate storytelling media, leading a small army of geniuses all at the height of their skills, might well be the answer to the film's own aesthetic Rosebud; that of its seeming Fountain Of Youth. The odds of this ever happening again are a million-to-one. The odds of the styles used falling into fashion once again make it many, many millions-to-one.With odds like that, the kind that define Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, regarded by many critics as the greatest painting ever created; Shakespeare's Hamlet, regarded by most experts as the greatest play ever written; and Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which seems to be near the top of most scholars' greatest symphonies lists, it is no wonder that Citizen Kane, in the minds of most, remains the greatest movie ever made. With odds like that, and time spans like those of the other artistic examples mentioned, it is also quite possible that Citizen Kane will remain the greatest movie that ever will be made.May 6. Happy Birthday, Orson. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 31 | https://www.facebook.com/Classic.Movie.Matinee/ | en | Facebook | https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/yv/r/B8BxsscfVBr.ico | https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/yv/r/B8BxsscfVBr.ico | [
"https://facebook.com/security/hsts-pixel.gif?c=3.2"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Sieh dir auf Facebook Beiträge, Fotos und vieles mehr an. | de | https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/yv/r/B8BxsscfVBr.ico | https://www.facebook.com/login/ | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 64 | https://www.viddy-well.com/top-10/fun-facts-about-citizen-kane | en | Ten Fun Facts About Citizen Kane — Viddy Well | http://static1.squarespace.com/static/58b1e837e6f2e1db5dffff7e/t/5fd00e966742965a9df1ba47/1607470776880/Screen+Shot+2020-12-08+at+5.33.52+PM.png?format=1500w | http://static1.squarespace.com/static/58b1e837e6f2e1db5dffff7e/t/5fd00e966742965a9df1ba47/1607470776880/Screen+Shot+2020-12-08+at+5.33.52+PM.png?format=1500w | [
"https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58b1e837e6f2e1db5dffff7e/1607470743074-VC81LZ7LTZ4JL24P7SEP/Screen+Shot+2020-12-08+at+5.33.52+PM.png",
"https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/58b1e837e6f2e1db5dffff7e/1607472538923-R99U44WZBYOSWFHN81OF/Stagecoach-1939_750x517_0.jpg",
"https://images.squares... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Aaron Haughton"
] | 2020-12-09T12:16:21-06:00 | We’re honoring one of cinema’s greatest creations, Orson Welles’ monumental directorial debut, Citizen Kane , by dishing out some fun facts about the film and its production! | en | https://assets.squarespace.com/universal/default-favicon.ico | Viddy Well | https://www.viddy-well.com/top-10/fun-facts-about-citizen-kane | Often heralded as one of the greatest films ever made (and for very good reason), Citizen Kane forever changed the face of cinema. Even today, at nearly 80 years old, the film still stands as a staggering cinematic achievement full of refreshing style and astounding technique.
Impressively, the film marked the directorial debut of Orson Welles, who up until that time had dominated the airwaves with his innovative work in radio. Even more impressive, Welles wore multiple hats on the production, serving as producer, director, actor, and co-writer. The film was a perfect storm of innovation and creativity, assembling the talents of Welles, screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, cinematographer Gregg Toland, editor (and future director) Robert Wise, and composer Bernard Herrmann.
Like David Fincher’s latest effort, Mank, mentions in its opening title cards, Welles was given total control over the project, with the freedom to tell whatever story he wanted without obstruction, which was unprecedented at the time. This is all the more mind-boggling when you consider Welles’ age (he was at the tender age of 25) and that he had never made a film before. Ultimately, it was his naive, outsider knowledge of cinema and camerawork that would lead to some of the film’s most groundbreaking achievements.
Given the recent release of Mank, we thought we’d honor one of Hollywood’s most monumental achievements by tossing out some fun facts. However, since some facts about the film — like how it’s based on newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst — are central to Fincher’s Mank, we’ve eschewed any of those and went looking for other tidbits that are lesser known. Hopefully, you learn something new; if not, be sure to unleash the power of Kane in the comments section below!
As previously mentioned in the intro text, Kane marked Welles’ first venture as a filmmaker. Since he had no experience and knew next to nothing about filmmaking, he turned to one of cinema’s early pioneers, John Ford, to educate himself on the craftsmanship of this foreign artform. Specifically, he turned to Stagecoach, which was one of the most acclaimed films at that time.
Welles claimed to have watched Ford’s film about 40 times over the course of one month in an effort to analyze the techniques behind its production, which he would use as a model when shooting Kane. When asked about his influences, he famously stated: "The old masters, by who I mean John Ford, John Ford, and John Ford."
Welles’ caffeine consumption and odd dietary routine impacted his health during production.
In his later years, Welles was notorious for his excesses, and his habits would creep up on him and cause several health issues in his autumn years. However, even at the age of 25, Welles suffered some unusual afflictions due to his bizarre eating and drinking habits during Citizen Kane’s production.
For instance, he would consume 30+ cups of coffee per day during pre-production, which, at one point, actually caused him to get (surprise, surprise!) caffeine poisoning. This caused him to switch over to tea, which he ignorantly believed would slow down his intake since it takes a bit of time to brew each cup. However, that didn’t work at all because Welles would have assistants rushing off to make the tea for him. Eventually, he drank so much tea a day that his skin actually changed color…
In addition to the copious amounts of caffeine consumption, Welles would sometimes go long stretches without eating anything at all. Once he was finally famished and ready to eat, he would gorge himself on meals that included “three large steaks with side items.”
Look, we know RKO gave Welles full creative control, but someone really should have stepped in here to give him some notes…
He was also injured twice while shooting.
In addition to the above health issues, Welles also suffered two injuries on set. Welles’ commitment to his character was usually the culprit.
While filming the scene where Kane violently trashes Susan’s room by ripping things off walls and smashing furniture, Welles was so immersed in his character during the rampage that he wound up cutting both his hands. Later, he would hilariously comment on his performance by saying, “I really felt it.”
The second injury was far more severe and would alter the scheduling for the production. It occurred during the filming of the scene where Kane confronts Jim Gettys on the staircase. As Welles’ went chasing actor Ray Collins down the stairs, he tripped and fell, chipping his ankle bone. The injury would leave Welles confined to a wheelchair for two weeks of the production, causing certain scenes to be rescheduled for this very reason. Whenever Welles was needed for a scene during these two weeks, he had to wear special metal braces just to be able to stand up. Now, that’s commitment!
Cinematographer Gregg Toland revolutionized the artform.
Gregg Toland actually approached Welles to ask if he could be the cinematographer on Kane. Toland recognized Welles’ lack of knowledge and was excited by the prospect of trying new things that others filmmakers within the industry wouldn’t dare. Welles liked Toland’s attitude and brought him on board, and Toland gave him a crash course in cinema, allegedly teaching him all there was to know in the span of a half day.
Long before Stanley Kubrick and John Alcott were modifying lenses and cameras, Toland was tinkering with lenses and lighting on Kane to create the deep focus technique that’s heavily featured in the film. Toland’s use here allowed the camera to function much in the same way the human eye does, giving a composition the ability to view an entire panorama at once, with everything clear and lifelike.
Additionally, Kane features many low-angle shots which was an unorthodox method in the day, since it allowed ceilings to be shown in the background. This required every set to be built with a ceiling, which broke studio convention. Welles wanted to, again, give the camera similarities to the human eye; he felt it was a bad theatrical custom to pretend there was no ceiling, commenting that it was "a big lie in order to get all those terrible lights up there.” To allow the ceilings to be visible, Toland would stretch muslin cloth over the top of the sets to create the illusion of a real ceiling — which would, in turn, allow microphones to be placed above actors. The low-angles would also require Toland to dig holes into the ground for the camera, which would occasionally mean drilling into a concrete floor.
Toland also worked closely with visual effects expert Linwood Dunn to create composite shots for the film by laying multiple shots together to create the illusion of one solitary image.
Before these innovative techniques were considered commonplace, they were all lovingly crammed into one astounding feature film. You can see Welles talk more about working with Toland, who he called "the best director of photography that ever existed,” below:
In addition to its revolutionary cinematography and narrative conventions, Citizen Kane featured some innovative makeup techniques.
The film examines the life of Charles Foster Kane throughout various points in his life, both youthful and geriatric. When it came to the old-age makeup, Welles turned to Maurice Seiderman, who was an aspiring — and non-union, mind you — makeup artist, who was sweeping the floors in the RKO makeup department at the time Kane was in pre-production. Seiderman caught Welles’ eye when he was experimenting with latex in his spare time to create face appliances that allowed actor’s to maintain natural expressions. Seiderman would also engineer special contact lenses to dull the brightness of an actor’s eyes when playing an older version of their character. Impressed by Seiderman’s ingenuity, Welles’ hired him on the spot. Latex face appliances are now, of course, another Kane method that’s common practice within today’s industry.
The makeup effects weren’t exclusive to the old-age makeup, either; they also apply to the youthful scenes as well. For example, when young Kane first buys the newspaper (delivering the link about going bankrupt in 60 years), Welles appears to be dressed as himself at his actual age; however, that couldn’t be further from the truth. He mentioned in an interview that he actually wore more makeup playing a younger man than he did playing the older iteration. Temporary facelifts and hair styling were applied, as were camera tricks, to make him look younger and more beautiful, which actually cast a big shadow over Welles. He would later say that he spent years living down how far he'd come from his "youthful looks," concluding that he felt as though he never really looked that good to begin with.
The studio actually sent spies to the set.
Since Welles had complete control over the project that meant that the studio couldn’t meddle with the creative process. Even though they promised to not interfere with the production, they still overstepped their promise, sending spies to the set to monitor and observe, reporting their findings to the executives. In hindsight, it was a futile gesture, since even if they disapproved of what their spies dug up, they had no contractional power to do anything about it.
Occasionally, the suits would drop by the set unannounced. During these instance, Welles would distract them with his natural charm and showmanship, sometimes even going so far as to perform magic tricks for them (which kinda makes Kane’s line about being a magician a bit more humorous). During these visitations, Welles instructed the crew to “Don’t do anything. Smoke cigarettes and talk.” They would even break into a game of softball sometimes until the executives left.
Joseph Cotten stayed awake for 24 hours to perform his drunken scenes.
The film’s famous MacGuffin is the word “Rosebud” and a group of reporters trying to parse the meaning of Charles Foster Kane’s dying word. This is over course — and SPOILER ALERT here — a reference to Kane’s childhood sled, a heartbreaking symbol of the joy and innocence that his wealth and power drained from him in his adulthood. It’s one of the most iconic plot devices in the whole of cinema, and even if you’ve never seen the film (which you definitely should if you haven’t), you’ve probably seen Kane’s “Rosebud” parodied in The Simpsons.
While many of the “Rosebud” sleds were burned during the production as part of the final scene, at least one of them survived. In 1982, one of the “Rosebud” sleds was auctioned off at Sotheby’s in New York City. The buyer was none other than Steven Spielberg, who was an innovative visionary in his own right. It’s still unclear if there are other sleds, or if Spielberg’s is the only one remaining. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 92 | https://www.nathanrabin.com/happy-place/2022/7/13/i-dont-care-what-you-think-of-citizen-kane | en | I Don't Care What You Think of Citizen Kane! — It Turns Out the Naming Rights! Membership Option Was For Real and Someone Is Now Five Hundred Bucks Poorer Presents Nat | http://static1.squarespace.com/static/583c906ebe659429d1106265/583c9d7a6a49631ee35cf2d6/62bf640669c06d6961b21f7e/1658127658240/Unknown-2.jpeg?format=1500w | http://static1.squarespace.com/static/583c906ebe659429d1106265/583c9d7a6a49631ee35cf2d6/62bf640669c06d6961b21f7e/1658127658240/Unknown-2.jpeg?format=1500w | [
"https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/583c906ebe659429d1106265/1586214270544-VA958HFDAQMTVN5SOO6Z/logored.jpg",
"https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/583c906ebe659429d1106265/1586214270544-VA958HFDAQMTVN5SOO6Z/logored.jpg",
"https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/583c906ebe659429d110626... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Nathan Rabin"
] | 2022-07-13T00:00:00 | Sorry. | en | https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/583c906ebe659429d1106265/1586227031615-KG1BP2HAGGHH9NMSLBS2/favicon.ico?format=100w | It Turns Out the Naming Rights! Membership Option Was For Real and Someone Is Now Five Hundred Bucks Poorer Presents Nat | https://www.nathanrabin.com/happy-place/2022/7/13/i-dont-care-what-you-think-of-citizen-kane | Every once in a while some detestable human being feels the need to post an insufferable, self-evidently wrong tweet about how people might like the childish entertainments of people like Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg but they ultimately just make clattering nonsense for dumb babies and not art for adults.
Most recently some tool named Jonathan Weisberg tweeted, “Scorsese, Spielberg, Tarantino... they're master story tellers with the sensibilities of children. Scorsese's obssession with gangsters is 14 year old boys' stuff. You can admire their talent without lauding their juvenile material. Maybe then we'd get some actual grown up movies.”
Clearly Weisberg clearly composed the tweet after an Alice Doesn’t Love Here Anymore, Kundun, Age of Innocence and Silence quadruple feature, as those are my favorite hyper-masculine Scorsese movies about the Mafia.
As is invariably the case, Film Twitter was mortified that someone had expressed an extremely stupid, extremely wrong, extremely ill-informed opinion on the internet and swung into action.
A friend posted about the viral tweet on Facebook and, as I am prone to do, I made a joke about how people thought Citizen Kane was good or whatever when it was just Orson Welles going, “Ga Ga Goo Goo. I’m a baby” and it literally being the cinematic equivalent of a baby dropping a monster load in its diaper.
I made the mistake of mentioning Citizen Kane on the internet. By doing so I was accidentally begging the universe to inundate me with opinions about Orson Welles’ towering masterpiece, a perennial contender for greatest film of all time.
Misreading the tone and intent of my comment, someone responded that while Citizen Kane is incontrovertibly an impressive technical achievement, contemporary audiences might have a hard time engaging with it emotionally.
My knee jerk response was not an honorable one. I wanted to respond, “I DON’T FUCKING CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT CITIZEN KANE. I DON’T CARE WHAT ANYBODY THINKS ABOUT CITIZEN KANE.”
I am never a fan of the question, “Is a piece of entertainment held up as incontrovertible masterpiece really all that great?”
I know why that question is asked and asked and then asked again. It has a lot to do with page-views and clicks but also with our innate tendency to rebel against the dictates of conventional wisdom, and there are few pieces of conventional wisdom more set in stone than the idea that Citizen Kane is, if not the single greatest movie ever made, then one of the best movies ever.
It’s a matter that has been litigated and then re-litigated and then re-litigated some more. It’s been argued and re-argued so often that there’s no life left in it. It’s fucking exhausted. It’s exhausting. Let’s move on.
I don’t care if you don’t like Citizen Kane. I don’t care if you think it’s overrated. I happen to find the very concept of “overrated” maddening and intellectually arrogant and bankrupt, if not quite as maddening and intellectually arrogant as imagining that the world angrily demands your take on the artistic merit of Citizen Kane and you must consequently offer it whenever given the opportunity.
I don’t care if you think Citizen Kane is boring. That, honestly tells me more about you than it does about Citizen Kane. I similarly find “boring” to be just about the vaguest and most meaningless criticism imaginable.
That said, I realize that by writing about how I don’t want to hear anyone’s opinions about Citizen Kane I am opening myself up to commenters arguing about Citizen Kane’s merits.
Let’s spare ourselves that aggravation and instead discuss a less exhausted subject: is Tom Green’s Freddy Got Fingered a surrealistic masterpiece or what?
Pre-order The Fractured Mirror, the Happy Place’s next book, a 600 page magnum opus about American films about American films, illustrated by the great Felipe Sobreiro over at Make it happen over at https://the-fractured-mirror.backerkit.com/hosted_preorders
The Joy of Trash, the Happy Place’s first non-"Weird Al” Yankovic-themed book is out! And it’s only 16.50, shipping, handling and taxes included, 30 bucks for two books, domestic only!
Buy The Joy of Trash, The Weird Accordion to Al and the The Weird Accordion to Al in both paperback and hardcover and The Weird A-Coloring to Al and The Weird A-Coloring to Al: Colored-In Special Edition signed from me personally (recommended) over at https://www.nathanrabin.com/shop
Or you can buy The Joy of Trash here and The Weird A-Coloring to Al here and The Weird Accordion to Al here
Help ensure a future for the Happy Place during an uncertain era AND get sweet merch by pledging to the site’s Patreon account at https://www.patreon.com/nathanrabinshappyplace We just added a bunch of new tiers and merchandise AND a second daily blog just for patrons!
Alternately you can buy The Weird Accordion to Al, signed, for just 19.50, tax and shipping included, at the https://www.nathanrabin.com/shop or for more, unsigned, from Amazon here.
I make my living exclusively through book sales and Patreon so please support independent media and one man’s dream and kick in a shekel or two! | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 33 | https://bookerhorror.com/citizen-kane-1941-director-orson-welles/ | en | CITIZEN KANE (1941, Director Orson Welles) | [
"https://bookerhorror.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/screen-shot-2019-11-15-at-8.32.55-pm.png?w=1024",
"https://bookerhorror.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/screen-shot-2019-11-15-at-8.42.57-pm.png?w=1024",
"https://bookerhorror.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/screen-shot-2019-11-15-at-9.07.58-pm.png?w=1024",
"... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/R9pYlvZ-FQo?version=3&rel=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&fs=1&hl=en&autohide=2&wmode=transparent"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2019-11-19T01:42:11+00:00 | https://youtu.be/R9pYlvZ-FQo Often found at the top of lists of “all-time great films,” Citizen Kane is undoubtedly the most important film by a man widely regarded as America’s most brilliant film director. Michael Denning argues that Welles is “the American Brecht, the single most important Popular Front artist in theater, radio, and film, both politically and… | en | https://s1.wp.com/i/favicon.ico | Comments on Culture | https://bookerhorror.com/citizen-kane-1941-director-orson-welles/ | Often found at the top of lists of “all-time great films,” Citizen Kane is undoubtedly the most important film by a man widely regarded as America’s most brilliant film director. Michael Denning argues that Welles is “the American Brecht, the single most important Popular Front artist in theater, radio, and film, both politically and aesthetically. … Welles is our Shakespeare” (362–63). And Denning is not alone in his admiration for Welles’s work. For example, Thomas Schatz calls Citizen Kane “easily the most innovative and controversial picture in prewar Hollywood,” noting also the unusual extent to which the film bears the creative stamp of its director (90). Welles’s innovative use of a variety of narrative strategies and of imaginative camera angles and techniques such as unprecedented deep-focus cinematography (developed for this film by cinematographer Gregg Toland) made Citizen Kane one of the most technically influential films in Hollywood history. The use of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst as the obvious model for the protagonist of Citizen Kane also provided a framework within which Welles addressed a number of important social and political issues, creating considerable controversy but also gaining considerable attention for his message.
Citizen Kane is the fictional biography of Charles Foster Kane (played by Welles himself), “the greatest newspaper tycoon of this or any other generation,” with Welles delivering a dazzling performance in the lead role. But it is far more than the fictional biography of an individual, even if Kane is largely based on one particular real-world person. In the film, Kane and his life take on allegorical dimensions that make him representative of large trends within American society, and his story becomes the story of America—or at least of those aspects of America that are dominated by the rich and powerful, a group whose very existence is an awkward fact of life in a society that is supposedly egalitarian, offering equal rights and equal opportunities to all. That Welles saw Kane as an allegorical figure of modern American society can be seen in his use during filming of working titles such as “American” and “John Citizen, U.S.A.” Kane stands out from all other Hollywood films of its time in the extent to which it makes daring and innovative technical and aesthetic choices that push the envelope of what film can be and do. Ultimately, though, what makes Kane such a great film is not only its astonishing stylistic achievements, but the fact that these achievements are put to work in the service of a narrative that interrogates important aspects of the American national identity, while also engaging with more specific political issues as well.
Citizen Kane begins with a bang. After the stark opening title, the screen goes black and then cuts to a worn and tarnished “NO TRESPASSING” sign on a carceral-looking chain-link fence. As ponderous, almost funereal music plays, the camera pans slowly upward, the fence fading into an even harsher-looking version and then finally to a lattice-work that might look less carceral but still looks dark and worn. Another fade transitions us to a shot from above what we have been seeing, now revealed to be a tall gate topped by a large encircled “K.” In the distance, through a fog, we see a dark and ominous-looking mansion with a lone window lighted. This house might be a haunted one, though the palm tree we see inside the gate suggest a balmier setting than the ones we are accustomed to seeing in Gothic horror films. This suggestion is immediately reinforced by a shot of two monkeys outside in a cage (though an odd cage whose bars appear to be too far apart to actually contain the monkeys), again suggesting a warm climate but also adding an extra touch of strangeness to the scene. More strangeness is then added via a cut to a dock protruding into a body of water on which exotic gondola-like boats are shown floating and in which the “haunted” mansion is reflected upside-down, wavering in the lightly rippling surface of the water. Another fade brings us back to a direct shot of the mansion, now seen from the grounds, which seem to involve elaborate decorations, including a drawbridge. This shot then fades into another view of the mansion, now with a sign intended to label the 16th tee of a golf course (two greens with flags are visible in the distance), suggesting that the estate contains a full 18-hole course. Eventually, the camera moves in on that lighted window, which is covered by a heavy screen, increasing the carceral feel of the setting, despite the obvious presence of once-elaborate posh trimmings on the site. Then the light suddenly blinks out, punctuated by a sudden stop to the music. The music resumes as the shot of the window shifts to an interior view, looking outward toward an apparently rising sun. Suddenly, what appears to be falling snow surprisingly sweeps across the window, in the midst of another fade. Perhaps the setting is not so balmy, after all? But then, as the fade is completed, the camera suddenly zooms out to reveal that the snow is falling inside a snow globe, which sits in the palm of an extended hand. A cut to a close-up of a man’s lips and mustache show him whispering (with a slight echo that makes the whisper seem more mysterious), “Rosebud.” Then a cut back to the hand shows it going limp, allowing the snow globe to fall out and roll down some steps, until it shatters on the floor. Then we see a shot of a door opening, allowing nurse to enter the room, her image distorted by what appears to be a shot through a piece of the broken globe, that outstretched hand shown weirdly above her. Then we cut to a shot of the nurse, now seen directly, but from an oddly close, shadowy, noirish shot that leaves her face off the screen, as she takes that limp hand and folds it up onto the chest of its apparently dead owner. The nurse then pulls a sheet up over the face and head of the man, in a traditional signifier of death. We then return to that shot of the sunrise through the window, before the screen goes entirely dark, followed by a stark cut to a new scene, including the sudden, startling intrusion of the film’s first spoken words, other than that enigmatic “Rosebud”: “News on the March,” announcing the title of a newsreel series, one installment of which is inserted in the film at this point.[1]
The entire opening sequence of Kane’s death at his now-decaying and nearly-abandoned estate only takes a bit more than three minutes, but it contains more overtly artful camerawork than most entire Hollywood films of its era, with its intrusive cuts and fades, its odd camera angles and movements, and its suggestive Expressionist lighting. This sequence also introduces information in tantalizing, but confusing, dribs and drabs that will only be clarified later, much in the mode of literary Impressionism.[2] In both its Expressionist visual style and its Impressionist technique of introducing content, Citizen Kane seems overtly designed as a challenge to the usual Hollywood style, in which lighting and camera manipulations are designed not to be noticed by viewers and in which stories are told in a straightforward linear manner. Thus, the film already, in these first three minutes, announces that it will not be the usual Hollywood fare, instead aligning itself more with literary modernism, while at the same time visually anticipating the development of film noir.
The inserted newsreel that follows this opening segment then serves as an unconventional bit of exposition that retroactively clarifies much of what we have seen in the opening three minutes, in particular identifying the dying man from the opening scene as one Charles Foster Kane. Meanwhile, as newsreels tend to do, it recaps Kane’s life in a nonlinear, fragmentary fashion, anticipating the way in which the remainder of the film will do the same. This newsreel (as that genre typically does) packs a great deal of information into its short runtime (just over nine minutes). Among other things, we learn that Kane has been a wealthy and powerful newspaper magnate (as Hearst had been), accompanied by a brief history of Kane’s newspaper empire. Here, we learn that Kane’s empire was actually quite diverse, extending into many realms beyond journalism, and that it actually had its roots in his family’s gold mine, the “third largest in the world.”[3] We also learn that the empire had been badly damaged by the Great Depression and that, by the time of Kane’s death in 1941, it was rapidly declining and in a state of near collapse.
In addition, the setting of the opening segment is revealed to be Kane’s once-bustling elaborate Florida estate, named “Xanadu,” in reference to the “stately pleasure-dome” mentioned in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s Romantic poem “Kubla Khan,” written in 1797, but not published until 1816. One of the most important items of information contained in this newsreel is the fact that Kane scoured the world seeking treasures and curiosities with which to decorate the unprecedented splendor of his Xanadu “palace,” including one shot of a camel heavily laden with goods meant for Xanadu, suggesting the exotic origins of some of Kane’s treasures. Indeed, Kane’s extravagance building his estate is specifically compared to that of the Egyptian pharaohs, identifying Xanadu as the most expensive human monument since the pyramids. Meanwhile, that these treasures are described in the newsreel as “the loot of the world,” immediately gives them a negative intonation, suggesting that they were essentially stolen from their rightful owners in a case of what might be described as consumerist imperialism. Xanadu, of course, is based primarily on Hearst castle, the palatial estate that William Randolph Hearst built near San Simeon, California, between 1919 and 1947 and which was indeed filled with artifacts from around the world, Hearst himself having expressed the desire to make it a sort of museum of the world’s finest things. But this motif also goes beyond Hearst and aligns Kane with the habits of other famous super-wealthy individuals in American history. The camels in the newsreel, for example, recall the devotion of financier and industrialist J. P. Morgan to collecting art from around the world—including ancient Egyptian artifacts—in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries.[4] Among other things, such collections suggest that, even in the years when the United States was a famously isolationist nation, American capitalism was already extending its tentacles around the globe, making the later emergence of corporate-dominated globalization seem like a logical and predictable development.
This subtle suggestion makes isolationism appear to be an unrealistic and possibly dishonest attitude, because it shows that the U.S. is already extensively involved in the affairs of the rest of the world. And it is only one of many ways in which the film undercuts the ideology of isolationism, an attitude that had made the U.S. very hesitant to enter the war that began in Europe in 1939. Politically, Welles was very much aligned with the collation of left-wing groups known as the Popular Front, which was centrally devoted to encouraging the U.S. to join Great Britain and the Soviet Union in the war against Nazi Germany. The most obvious allegorization of isolationism in the film, of course, is Kane’s turn away from the public world and retreat to Xanadu, which is depicted as a pathetic and defeatist move, thus suggesting a similarly negative view of isolationism in global politics.[5]
The newsreel also makes clear that Kane had been a very public man, loved by millions and hated by just as many. It is also clear that his newspaper empire had given him considerable political power, giving him access to some of the world’s most powerful leaders. In perhaps the newsreel’s most important single image, Kane is shown at one point rubbing elbows with Hitler, whom the narrator of the newsreel suggests had once been supported in the pages of Kane’s papers, though it is also suggested that Kane later withdrew that support. The newsreel also points out that, upon his return from a European trip shortly before the outbreak of World War II (which occurred in 1939), Kane announced that he had consulted all of the most powerful European leaders and assured his public that there would be no war. In this and other ways, Kane’s judgment and perspicacity are subtly questioned in this newsreel, which is far from a mere elegy.
The newsreel suddenly comes to a screeching halt, revealing that we have not been seeing an ordinary newsreel as shown in a theater. Instead, we have been watching a preliminary cut, which is being shown in the private screening room of the producers of News on the March. The newsreel makes it clear that Kane had been a rather enigmatic figure, despite being so well known. In fact, he is so enigmatic that the producers of this newsreel are unsatisfied that they have adequately captured the gist of the man[6]. As a result, one of their reporters, Jerry Thompson (William Alland), is assigned to research Kane further, to try to find an “angle” that will capture the real essence of the man. In particular, he is assigned to investigate the meaning of “Rosebud,” the final word spoken by Kane before his death, in the hope that this will somehow provide a summary insight.
Thompson will then spend the remainder of the film attempting, without success, to decipher the meaning of this enigmatic final word, though audiences are presumably clued in just before the end of the film as workers, clearing some of the less valuable detritus at Xanadu by burning it, toss a cheap child’s sled into a fiery furnace. We can see, just before it is consumed in flames, the insignia that is imprinted on the sled: “Rosebud.” Mystery solved. Rosebud was the name of the sled Kane owned as a child, which he has now tracked down and retrieved, in a symbolic suggestion of the importance of his lost childhood to the remainder of his life. But Citizen Kane, of course, is not a film that lends itself to simple and definitive interpretations, certainly not ones as cheap and sentimental as this one. The name of the Rosebud sled is revealed almost immediately after Thompson has declared that no single word could sum up a man’s life, and most of the film supports his position, especially in the case of Kane, who is filled with so many contradictions. As James Naremore puts it, in Citizen Kane “everything evokes its opposite and all statements about the protagonist are true in some sense.” Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that a thoughtful consideration of this final revelation about the sled shows that it actually raises more questions than it answers. Presumably, the snow globe held by Kane as he drifts into death has helped to trigger memories of his childhood in a snowy Colorado. But Kane’s emotional relationship with the globe is complicated by the fact that (as we learn in the course of the film) he had found the globe in the bedroom of his second wife, Susan Alexander Kane (Dorothy Comingore), while he was wrecking the room in a fit of rage after learning that she was leaving him. In the midst of smashing a number of expensive artifacts, Kane suddenly sees the snow globe, itself merely a cheap trinket, and halts his rampage. Clutching the glass orb, he mutters “Rosebud,” making it clear that the snow globe and the sled are linked in his mind, presumably because they are both connected with snow, something that he associates with his childhood.
Meanwhile, all of this is complicated by the fact that, when Kane first meets Susan and goes with her to her apartment in a later scene of the film, she already has the snow globe sitting on her dressing table. Thus, the globe is not a literal memento of Kane’s snowy Colorado, nor is it something that was given to Susan by Kane. The film calls no attention to the globe when it is shown in Susan’s apartment, so we can only speculate about whether Kane even noticed it, let only whether it somehow connects Susan with his lost childhood, making his attempt to gain ownership of her part of his larger quest to recover something he feels he has lost from his past.
In short, the snow globe perhaps poses as many questions as it answers, and the same might be said about the Rosebud sled. The seemingly simple, straightforward interpretation of the meaning of “Rosebud” as an emblem of Kane’s lost childhood actually requires viewers to make a number of assumptions, filling in a great deal of information that is not really supplied in the film. Are we sure that the sled we see burning at the end of the film is in fact the very sled that Kane had owned as a child, or is it simply a sled that is similar to that one? And how is it seemingly public knowledge that Kane uttered “Rosebud” as he died, given that he was, in fact, alone in the room as he issued this utterance?
One might compare here the famous last words of Kurtz (“the horror, the horror”) in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. These words supposedly supply a fundamental insight into the nature of Kurtz and his view of life, though it is entirely unclear what insight is really supplied. In addition, we are not at all sure that the information identifying these as Kurtz’s dying words is really reliable. After all, this information comes to us from an unnamed and unidentified narrator who is relaying to us second-hand what he claims that Charlie Marlow, the novel’s central character, had identified to him as Kurtz’s dying words. We know, though, that Marlow is an unreliable source of information and that he is not above outright fabrication. In addition, from what he himself apparently told the narrator, Marlow was not actually present at the moment of Kurtz’s death, but instead supposedly heard Kurtz mutter “the horror” some time before his death, which was itself apparently witnessed only by an African servant.
Because of its complex narrative voice and because of Marlow’s obvious unreliability, it is impossible to know anything for sure about Heart of Darkness. And the same can be said of Citizen Kane, the bulk of which consists of Thompson’s search for information about Kane by consulting a series of Kane’s former associates, each of whom supplies a flashback narrative that supposedly provides one piece of the puzzle. All of the information he gathers about Kane is thus second-hand, as is all of the information we get about Marlow in Heart of Darkness. Moreover, all of this information about Kane is itself partial in both senses of the word: it is not only incomplete, but it is also clearly colored by the points of views of the suppliers of the information.
Susan Alexander Kane
Thompson begins his quest by interviewing Kane’s second wife, whom he discovers working as the headline entertainer at the “El Rancho” nightclub in Atlantic City, which is introduced though another complex, moving-camera shot that makes clear that the artistry of this film will not be limited to the prologue but will continue through Thompson’s investigation. After the camera soars above the nighclub and then apparently moves through its cracked skylight, Thompson finds a drunken Susan Alexander Kane sitting at a table inside. She seems a sad and fallen figure, presumably because of Kane’s death. The headwaiter at the club does, however, suggest that he might have some information about the meaning of “Rosebud,” taking a bribe that Thompson slips to him, but then saying that he once asked Susan about Rosebud and that “she never heard of it.” This moment thus becomes one of many in which the film teases us with bits of information while withholding most of it.
Walter Parks Thatcher
Rebuffed by Susan, Thompson next goes to the Thatcher Memorial Library in Philadelphia, where he hopes to find information in the papers of deceased banker Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris), an important figure in Kane’s life. Thompson consults Thatcher’s private unpublished memoirs, which are among the papers held at the library. These papers do, in fact, supply a great deal of information, but neither we nor Thompson are in a position to judge its reliability or to question Thatcher about it. In addition, one of the conditions under which Thompson is allowed to examine the memoirs is that her will use no direct quotes from it, so that we are not able to tell just how closely the flashbacks that follow actually match Thatcher’s memoirs (or how closely those memoirs match reality).
The flashback begins in 1871, and it quickly becomes clear that the artistry of the film’s early moments is still at work. Indeed, these flashback segments are oddly artistic—and perhaps far stranger than they might first appear. In particular, it is clear that the flashbacks contain far more information and are far more artfully presented than anything that could be contained in the actual information Thompson is presented in Thatcher’s memoirs or in his direct interviews. So where does all this come from? It comes, of course, from Welles and Toland, thus reminding us, on one level, that this film is a constructed work of fiction. But this emphasis on fictionality also extends into the world of the film, reminding us that the narratives Thompson garners from his various interviewees are also constructed and not necessarily reliable.
In this first flashback, Thatcher travels to Colorado to meet with the parents of young Kane, who is first seen sledding in a snowstorm, establishing an immediate connection with the “Rosebud” motif. The Kanes are owners of a somewhat seedy boarding house, but the mother, Mary Kane (played by Agnes Moorehead), has come into possession of a seemingly worthless gold mine from a boarder who signed the deed over to her in lieu of paying for his board. The mine has now turned out to be fabulously rich in ore, and Mary—over the objections of the boy’s father—has arranged for Thatcher to become the boy’s guardian and to take him back to New York to be raised in surroundings appropriate to such a wealthy child. As part of the deal, Thatcher’s bank will also assume management of the gold mine, paying a sum of $50,000 per year to the Kanes (a fact that causes the father suddenly to withdraw his objections).
The bulk of the wealth from the mine is to be held in trust for young Charles until he reaches his 25th birthday, at which time he will assume full control of the wealth. We then see the handover of young Charles to Thatcher, with a clear implication that Charles’ mother is attempting to act in what she sees as the boy’s best interest, with clear implications that the boy’s father might have been physically abusive, causing the mother to want to get the boy away from him. The boy is then taken away, struggling to resist, while Rosebud is left behind in the snow in a sentimental shot that seems unlikely to have been generated directly by Thatcher’s memoirs. Indeed, this entire segment is generated from Thompson’s reading of less than 60 pages of handwritten text, so we can infer that there is probably a great deal of reading between the lines going on here and that many of the details may or may not be accurate—either because Thatcher did not report them with sufficient detail or accuracy or because Thompson modified them in his interpretation of Thatcher’s memoirs—assuming that his interpretation is what we are seeing in the flashback. The scene then suddenly cuts to a Christmas scene in which Charles is presented by Thatcher with a much nicer sled[7], but in surroundings that are completely lacking in love or family warmth. The next cut then takes us immediately to the approach of Kane’s 25th birthday, when Thatcher is dictating a very impersonal letter informing Kane that he is to assume control of his own finances (the world’s sixth largest private fortune, we are told) for the first time. Most of Kane’s childhood is thus missing altogether from the film, but there is a sense in which it is missing from Kane’s life. Raised by a bank rather than a family, Kane is man with missing parts, a product of the capitalist system, a system that produces only soulless commodities.
The next cut shows Thatcher reading Kane’s response, which suggests that Kane has little interest in the various properties being turned over to him, except for the New York Inquirer, which Kane suggests it might be fun to run. Then there is an immediate to montage sequence (accompanied by comical music) in which Thatcher is shown reacting with exasperation to a series of campaigns that Kane has launched in his newly-acquired newspaper, all designed to expose inequities in Thatcher’s various business dealings. This sequence ends with a confrontation between Kane and Thatcher in which Kane is shown, in compromising fashion, suggesting that he is willing to instigate a war between the United States and Spain over Cuba, just so his newspaper will have something sensational to cover.[8] Kane also announces in this scene that he sees himself as a crusader, defending the common people of America against “money-mad pirates” like Thatcher and his ilk, and thereby hoping to prevent a potential revolution in which the common people might defend themselves.
The film next jumps to the collapse of the stock market in late 1929 and to Kane’s subsequent loss of much of his property, including the Inquirer and the far-flung newspaper syndicate into which it had grown. He is shown signing over ownership of his newspaper empire back to the opportunistic Thatcher, though Kane himself will still exercise a measure of control. Kane seems defeated here, viewing his life in retrospective, as if there is nothing more to be accomplished. He tells Thatcher that he wishes he could have been everything Thatcher hates, making clear the depth of animosity that he still bears toward the aging banker, an animosity that (among other things) raises questions about Thatcher’s objectivity as a source of information about Kane.
Mr. Bernstein
Indeed, this “Thatcher” segment raises key epistemological questions that runs through the remainder of the film, in which events from Kane’s life are presented to us on screen as if we are observing them directly, even though in fact we never are. All of the information presented in Citizen Kane is indirect, and most of it is of questionable reliability, perhaps echoing the questionable reliability of the information presented in Kane’s newspapers. Thompson turns directly from his visit to the Thatcher Library to a visit with Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloan), Kane’s long-time lieutenant at the Inquirer, now the Chairman of the Board of Kane’s former company. He sits in a posh office with a huge portrait of Kane on the wall at his back, suggesting that his relationship with Kane is far different from Thatcher’s. It is also clear that Bernstein’s relationship with Thatcher is adversarial. When Thompson mentions that he had visited Thatcher’s library, Bernstein immediately declares Thatcher “the biggest fool I ever met.” He also suggests that Thatcher, who was devoted only to making money, never understood Kane, because Kane had other interests. Thus, Thatcher’s account of his experiences with Kane is immediately put further into doubt.
Bernstein’s own narrative about Kane begins on the first day Kane took control of the Inquirer, sending us into another flashback segment. Kane arrives at the newspaper offices in the company of his old friend and former college chum Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotton), who will turn out to be a key figure in the film. Bernstein is trailing close behind with a wagonload of Kane’s personal furnishings, which he installs in the office of the editor-in-chief of the paper, where Kane plans to live for the time being. Then he sets about making the Inquirer into a bigger, flashier, and more successful paper, clearly with an eye more toward producing eye-catching headlines than toward solid journalism. Kane launches his regime by publishing a “Declaration of Principles” in the next issue of the paper, pledging that he will henceforth print the news truthfully and make the Inquirer a champion of human rights. Leland, impressed, claims the handwritten original as a memento of this auspicious beginning.
From the beginning, though, Kane seems more devoted to increasing his paper’s circulation any way he can. In particular, he sets his sights on the crack reportorial staff of the Chronicle, which has a circulation nearly 20 times that of the Inquirer.[9] Over a period of the next six years, he poaches the entire staff; the circulation of the Inquirer, meanwhile, has increased from 26,000 to 684,000 in that time. Kane conducts an elaborate celebration, complete with marching band and dancing girls, in a scene that suggests he is more into showmanship than accurate reporting. Meanwhile, he hints that would like to stimulate circulation further, perhaps by encouraging a war with Spain, giving his paper something spectacular to cover.
We also learn from this segment that Kane had begun collecting statues from around the world almost as soon as he came into his fortune. In addition, we learn of his first marriage—to Emily Monroe Norton (Ruth Warrick), the niece of the President of the United States. We also learn that this marriage ended badly, though no details are supplied at this time. More than anything, Bernstein urges Thompson to consult Leland as the best source of personal information about Kane, which Thompson agrees to do, having already located Leland, who is currently a patient in a New York hospital, suffering from “old age.”
Jedediah Leland
The Leland segment begins as Leland assures Thompson he remembers absolutely everything, something that he suggests is a curse. He also acknowledges that he was Kane’s oldest and closest friend, though it is also clear that the two had been at odds ever since Kane’s meddling helped to trigger the Spanish-American War forty-three years earlier—a suggestion that shows just how alone in the world Kane really was. Kane, says Leland, never believed in anything except himself. He then begins to fill in the story of Kane’s first marriage—about which he will be the only source, given that Emily is long deceased, killed (along with their son) in an automobile accident that occurred two years after the Kanes’ 1916 divorce.
The film then moves into a flashback sequence that details the gradual deterioration of the Kane marriage, which Leland presumably knows about because Kane confided in him about his domestic life, though there is another bit of uncertainty here about the sourcing of the information. Indeed, this sequence contains a great deal of detailed information that is unlikely to have been fully available to Leland. In the flashback, with Kane devoted more to the Inquirer than to his marriage, he and Emily gradually grow apart, especially after his paper begins attacking her uncle in its pages. This sequence presents the gradual alienation of the two spouses with brilliant economy, via a montage sequence that shows the Kanes at their breakfast table, which begins with relative intimacy, as Kane kisses Emily on the forehead before sitting with her at their small table. In subsequent shots, the two grow more and more distant—even literally, as we see in the final shot, which reveals that they now sit at opposite ends of what is now a much longer table.
Leland also fills in the details of the first meeting of the fifty-ish Kane with Susan Alexander, a twenty-two-year-old salesgirl. The two meet cute in a rainstorm, and we will learn later that this encounter diverted Kane from a trip to a warehouse that had just received a number of items from his former home in Colorado (presumably including the Rosebud sled). This meeting quickly leads to an affair that ultimately destroys not only Kane’s marriage but also his political ambitions. Engaged in a campaign to become governor of New York, Kane is brought down when his apparently corrupt opponent, incumbent governor James “Jim” W. Gettys, learns of the affair and announces it to the public after attempting to blackmail Kane into withdrawing. This announcement causes Kane, whose campaign as a “fighting liberal” had seemed to be headed for a sure victory that might ultimately have been a springboard to the presidency, to lose all support. Gettys is re-elected in a landslide, and Kane’s political ambitions are permanently derailed. This event also alienates Leland further from Kane, whom Leland believes should have withdrawn from the race to avoid a public scandal and humiliation for both Emily and Susan. Kane, says Leland, was a man who wanted everyone to love him but who never loved anyone except himself (and possibly his mother).
This segment suggests that Kane’s passion for Susan Alexander was based not so much on genuine love as on the hope that the down-to-earth ordinariness of the young woman might help him to recover something that he had lost in himself. This relationship thus continues the theme of loss that runs throughout the film, while also adding a touch of pathos as Kane, attracted to Susan because she is so ordinary, then finds himself irresistibly driven to try to make her extraordinary, apparently in order to feed his own insatiable ego. Susan has a vague interest in singing, so Kane sets about attempting to make her into a successful opera star, though she clearly doesn’t have the voice for it. He spends huge sums of money, going so far as to build a new multimillion-dollar opera house in Chicago for Susan to perform in. But she simply lacks the talent, and her career (like Kane’s attempt to promote it) becomes an object of derision.
William Randolph Hearst, it might be noted, was engaged in a long-time affair with actress Marion Davies, thirty-four years his junior. Though married, Hearst openly lived with Davies, ultimately building Hearst Castle to occupy with the actress, while Hearst’s wife lived her own separate life, refusing to grant a divorce. Hearst and Davies had a daughter together, though the girl was presented to the world as Davies’s niece and ward until shortly before her death in 1993. Hearst used his considerable influence in Hollywood in an attempt to promote Davies’ acting career, insisting that she be cast in serious dramatic roles, for which she was ill-suited. Unlike Susan Alexander, however, Davies was a gifted comedic actress and had a substantial career on her own before Hearst’s interference, making enough money in acting to help bail out Hearst when he was near bankruptcy during the depression. In fact, Hearst’s attempts to promote her to serious roles probably damaged her career significantly.[10]
Hearst and Davies remained together for over thirty years, until his death in 1951, but Kane and Susan are not so successful. The flashback continues with their wedding celebration, which Kane orchestrates in a very public fashion, as if in defiance of the scandal mongers who would decry his relationship with the “singer,” as one newspaper headline characterizes her, including the scare quotes. But Kane’s attempts to make Susan into an opera star do nothing but make her into an object of mockery, while Leland’s negative review of her debut performance drives a further wedge between Leland and Kane, who already have spoken since the Gettys affair, now years in the past. Actually, Kane stubbornly completes that negative review himself after Leland passes out while drinking and writing the review, then fires Leland from his job as the drama critic for the Chicago Inquirer. From this point, Kane’s attempts to dominate and control her life finally drive Susan to leave him, leading to the famous scene in which he ransacks her room, which in turn takes us back to the film’s opening (and Kane’s closing) moments.
Susan Alexander Kane II
Leland’s segment, which lasts more than thirty-five minutes, is the longest in the film, suggesting the way in which Leland and Kane were relatively close in their early years together. At the same time, even Leland never got that close to Kane, and the two men spent more years of their adult lives estranged from one another than they did as friends. The Leland segment thus ultimately serves to reinforce the characterization of Kane as a lonely man with no real connections to anyone, a man unable to view other people as anything but objects to be manipulated in the interest of his own goals. Indeed, Susan Alexander was perhaps the person who came closest to really knowing Kane, so Thompson now returns to the El Rancho to take another shot at interviewing her. This time, sunken even further into drink, she agrees to talk.
The following flashback segment is perhaps the most poignant in the film, as it becomes clear how much Susan suffered in the attempt to try to fulfill Kane’s ambitions for her as a singer. In this version, we see an extended sequence from Susan’s fateful debut performance in Chicago; it’s painful for most of the audience to watch and even more painful for Susan to perform. Kane, meanwhile, looks on in rapt fascination with a clear look of ownership, his male gaze consisting not of desire for Susan so much as desire for her to make him look good. Indeed, Laura Mulvey—the important film critic whose work first popularized the notion that Hollywood films tend to be dominated by the male gaze, positioning the audience to see the film from a male perspective—has pointed out in her book-length study of Citizen Kane that this is one of the few films of its era that is not dominated by the male gaze. For Mulvey, in fact, this is one of the key ways in which Citizen Kane is “strikingly anti-Hollywood” (26). Thus, while Susan performs in this scene in the most scantily clad costume of the film, the effect is not to evoke sexual desire but instead to invite sympathy for the way she is put on display in this performance[11]. In short, we are invited to see this performance from Susan’s own point of view, rather than from that of Kane or any other male audience member.
As Mulvey puts it, “The scenes in which Susan performs in the opera actually undercut and caricature the figure of woman as erotic spectacle” (26). Meanwhile, this motif is made even more interesting because the opera in which she appears, Salammbo, is presumably based on Gustave Flaubert’s 1862 historical novel Salammbô (which has been adapted to opera several times, though the opera in the film seems to be entirely fictional). Ironically, the title character of Flaubert’s novel (and presumably the character played by Susan in the opera) is very much a figure of woman as erotic spectacle, with a healthy dose of Orientalism thrown in as well, presumably making her more exotic and sexually enticing. In the opera, however, this erotic spectacle falls flat, and Susan never appears to be anything other than a poor young woman who is very much out of her element and very uncomfortable with being on display in this way.
When Susan, humiliated in the wake of her debut, angrily announces that she is giving up singing, Kane says that she must keep singing, because “I do not propose to have myself made ridiculous.” Susan screams back at him that she is the one who has to do the singing. We’ve known all along, of course, that Susan’s singing career is all about Kane, not Susan, but it is, in fact, Kane who begins to look ridiculous as he sends her on tour, printing rave reviews of her performances in his papers. Eventually, Susan is driven to attempt suicide, after which Kane finally relents and allows her to stop singing. The two move into their own private world at Xanadu, where she spends most of her time doing giant jigsaw puzzles, and he spends much of his time wandering about in near darkness.[12] The Kanes occasionally have elaborate, highly choreographed parties, but the cinematography emphasizes the growing gulf between them, culminating in that crucial moment when Susan announces her departure from the marriage, ending the flashback and returning us to the El Rancho, where Susan recommends that Thompson talk with Kane’s butler Raymond, because “he knows where all the bodies are buried.”
Raymond the Butler
The film immediately cuts to Thompson’s interview with Raymond (Paul Stewart), ominously conducted in almost total darkness. Raymond begins by negotiating for payment from Thompson, offering to reveal the secret of Rosebud in return for $1,000, clearly echoing the head waiter back at the El Rancho. Raymond’s venality casts suspicion upon his motivations and perhaps makes his flashback sequence the least reliable of all. This sequence begins exactly where Susan’s ended, with her departure from Xanadu—which is convenient, given that Raymond presumably has no idea where Susan ended her narrative, raising the question of whether we should think of these flashbacks as having been edited by Thompson all along. In the wake of her departure, the aging Kane, in a bravura scene, goes berserk and wrecks her room, staggering about in a manner that suggests that this fit of fury might have hastened his death. He stops when he finds the snow globe and utters “Rosebud,” which Raymond looking on from outside the room, overhears, later telling Thompson that he heard it “that other time, too,” apparently meaning at the moment of Kane’s death and also presumably solving the puzzle of the source of that information. On the other hand, Raymond is presented as a somewhat untrustworthy source, clearly not above simply inventing information if he thinks it might be marketable. Thus, far from solving the question of the source of the “Rosebud” information, this revelation raises serious questions about whether Kane uttered this word at all at the moment of his death.
In any case, Kane pockets the snow globe before stumbling back to his room, his large retinue of servants looking on in stunned silence as Raymond’s flashback ends. Thompson angrily stalks away, telling Raymond that his story (which, after all, explains nothing) is not worth $1,000. As Thompson leaves, with Raymond trailing behind still angling for payment, we see workers gathering Kane’s leftovers, with valuable items being catalogued and crated up and less valuable ones burned. After Thompson departs, we see workmen toss an old child’s sled bearing the name “Rosebud” into the flames, just after an overhead tracking shot designed to show the vast extent of Kane’s collection comes to rest on an old photograph of Kane as a child, with his mother. We see a dramatic shot of a smoke plume wafting skyward from the furnace, suggesting the way in which Kane’s childhood went up in smoke. Then, a final shot of the gate and the “No Trespassing Sign,” completes the film with a neat symmetry.
This last scene adds a touch of pathos, but in general Welles presents Kane’s story in a mode free of sentimentality, though he does humanize the central character, thus producing a certain amount of sympathy for a man who himself has little sympathy for anyone else. Kane is a complex character with deep and fatal flaws, but he has sympathetic aspects as well. Indeed, Citizen Kane is carefully constructed in a highly dialogic fashion, fundamentally built out of contrasts and contradictions. But Kane’s story is not merely a personal one, and the film also carefully interweaves the personal with the political. This aspect of the film adheres most obviously in the way Kane’s personal relationship with Susan undermines his political career. But it runs throughout the film. For example, Mulvey argues that both the snow globe and the “Rosebud” sled serve as “a reminder of the place that ‘things’ came to occupy” in American society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (11). Indeed, that period was the period of the rise of consumer capitalism, which brought about a transformation in the entire fabric of American society during that period.[13]
That such seeming trivial consumer commodities could play such an important role in Kane’s life speaks volumes about the growing importance of such objects in American life. Moreover, these objects are contrasted in the film with the art treasures collected by Kane from around the world, suggesting that American capitalism has replaced objects of genuine aesthetic value with cheap consumer goods. At the same time, almost everything about this film offers multiple interpretations. The film, according to Naremore, is “ an impure mixture of ideas, forms, and feelings—part magic show, part tragedy; part satire, part sentiment.” It is perhaps not surprising, then, that there is a way in which Citizen Kane might actually flip this comparison between different classes of objects. In a key scene just before she leaves Xanadu, Susan complains that the expensive gifts Kane gives her and the expensive art objects he collects both mean nothing, because they are “just money.” “You never really give me anything that belongs to you, that you care about,” she declares. “You never gave me anything in your whole life. You just try to buy me into giving you something.” What he wants her to give him, of course, is love, but Susan’s speech here suggests that items such as the snow globe or the Rosebud sled, which have little commercial value but a great deal of sentimental value, might ultimately be more valuable in a real sense than gaudy jewelry or ancient statues, though the latter have much greater exchange value on the open market. In this sense, the sled and the globe might be seen as anti-capitalist images.
In any case, however important it might be to acknowledge the brilliance of Citizen Kane as a work of art, it is clear that the film makes a number of political statements. The most urgent of these is its implicit anti-fascism and its call for the U.S. to enter the war against fascism—which the U.S. did three months after the release of the film (though the film was not responsible for that event). In a more general sense, Citizen Kane also comments in important ways on the rise of the modern American media and on the dehumanizing and alienating consequences of capitalism, whatever its material benefits. Citizen Kane is, indeed, the most leftist Hollywood film of its era, taking a stance that was enabled partly by the unusual leeway given Welles in his contract with RKO and partly by the way in which the formal complexity of the film tends to obscure its politics.
Finally, it should be noted that even this aspect of Citizen Kane can be seen in very different ways. On the one hand, the careful way in which the film balances alternative interpretations of almost everything in it is a demonstration of the fact that Welles’ Popular Front politics were fair and open-minded, as opposed to the fanatical single-mindedness often attributed to the Left by its opponents. One could potentially even push this interpretation further to argue that Citizen Kane’s structural oppositions actually give the whole film a dialectical[14] quality, which—according to Karl Marx—was the only adequate way to analyze something as complex and contradictory as capitalism. But one could also argue that the oppositional structure of Citizen Kane vitiates the immediate effectiveness of the film’s political commentary and can possibly be seen as an attempt to get the film made and distributed at all.[15]
Finally, it should be noted that all of this is colored by the fact that the film was made in a very different historical and political context than the one in which we now watch it. The film’s critique of isolationism and warnings against fascism would have seemed immediate and obvious to audiences in 1941, just as the film’s tour-de-force violations of the Hollywood style would have seemed more striking, even stunning, in 1941 than they do now, given all the stylistic razzle-dazzle we have seen in the films of the past few decades. Meanwhile, Citizen Kane’s warnings about the manipulative power of the media and the creeping cancer of consumerism would have probably seemed secondary to the concerns about fascism in 1941 but now stand out more than ever after the explosive growth of media penetration into every aspect of American life in the past few decades. What is perhaps most remarkable about Citizen Kane is that, despite all of these changes in context the film remains such a landmark in the history of cinema, still able to elicit admiration for its aesthetics and critical debates about its meanings.
WORKS CITED
Carringer, Robert L. The Making of Citizen Kane. Revised and updated ed. University of California Press, 1996.
Denning, Michael. The Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century. Verso, 1996.
Leach, William. Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture. Vintage-Random House, 1993.
Mass, Roslyn. “A Linking of Legends: The Great Gatsby and Citizen Kane.” Literature/Film Quarterly (1974) 207-15.
Mulvey, Laura. Citizen Kane. 2nd ed. Bloomsbury (on behalf of the British Film Institute), 2019.
Naremore, James. The Magic World of Orson Welles. University of Illinois Press, 2015.
Schatz, Thomas. Boom and Bust: The American Cinema in the 1940s. Scribner’s, 1997.
NOTES
[1] Newsreels were a popular form of visual information distribution in the years before television. Essentially short documentary films, newsreels were typically shown in movie theaters as supplements to the feature films showing there at the time, though some theaters featured programs consisting entirely of newsreels. One of the most popular newsreel series, Pathé News, was distributed by RKO from 1931 to 1947. Welles himself had worked on a radio newsreel known as The March of Time, which inspired a filmed newsreel of the same title that was shown in theaters from 1935 to 1951. This newsreel seems to have been the principal model for the one in Citizen Kane.
[2] See Roslyn Mass for a comparison of both Kane and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic 1925 novel The Great Gatsby with the work of Joseph Conrad, one of the leading practitioners of literary Impressionism. That Kane might be influenced by Conrad would not be a surprise given that Welles pivoted to the making of Kane immediately after abandoning an attempt to adapt Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899) to film.
[3] Hearst built his own empire on the wealth he inherited from his father, George Hearst, whose principal source of wealth was the Homestake Mine, a very rich gold mine near the town of Deadwood in the Black Hills of South Dakota. George Hearst figures as a particularly reprehensible villain in the HBO television series Deadwood.
[4] Morgan’s collecting is an important motif in E. L. Doctorow’s 1975 novel historical novel Ragtime, set in the early years of the twentieth century.
[5] It should also be noted that, especially during the Popular Front period, Hearst was a dedicated isolationist, espousing precisely the attitudes that the Popular Front was designed to oppose.
[6] Denning argues that the rest of Citizen Kane can, in fact, be read as a critique of this newsreel and of the kind of dramatized reporting it embodies, converting important news events into entertainment spectacles, a suggestion that, of course, makes the film more relevant today than ever. Citizen Kane, argues Demming, both “mocks and mimics” the magic of the newsreel form (388).
[7] This sled is labeled “Crusader,” foreshadowing the role that Kane will later play as a newspaperman, especially in his crusade against Thatcher.
[8] The reference here, of course, is to the 1898 Spanish-American war, which Hearst, in his New York Journal, helped to initiate with sensational reporting that denounced Spain and helped to create enthusiasm for the war among his readers.
[9] The rivalry between the Inquirer and the Chronicle is based on that between Hearst’s New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World.
[10] One of the persistent rumors about Citizen Kane, unverified but widely reported, is that “Rosebud” was Hearst’s pet name for Davies’ clitoris, a fact that she might perhaps have shared with her friend Herman J. Mankiewicz, who co-wrote the script for Kane along with Welles.
[11] Welles also had to shoot around the fact that Dorothy Comingore was pregnant during filming, which further limited the kinds of shots that could be featured in the film.
[12] These puzzles, of course, serve as self-referential images of the film itself, in which Thompson attempts to re-assemble the pieces of Kane’s broken life.
[13] See Leach for a superb account of the rise of consumer capitalism in America during this period.
[14] Marx’s dialectical method of thinking through problems, derived through an improved historicization of the method used by G.W.F. Hegel, essentially consists of comparing opposed positions on a given topic, then working through that opposition to achieve a new viewpoint that acknowledges elements of both of the initial positions but also goes beyond either of them. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 38 | https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/03/more-able-than-kane/ | en | The American Interest | [
"https://www.the-american-interest.com/wp-content/themes/aiwp-2.0/images/AI-Mast-bw.gif",
"https://www.the-american-interest.com/wp-content/themes/aiwp-2.0/images/TAI.png",
"https://www.the-american-interest.com/wp-content/themes/aiwp-2.0/images/menu.svg",
"https://www.the-american-interest.com/wp-content/the... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Colin Fleming"
] | 2017-02-03T00:00:00 | Yes, Citizen Kane is great, but that’s not the half of it. The more Orson Welles was forced to improvise and budget down, the better he got. | en | The American Interest | https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/02/03/more-able-than-kane/ | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 80 | https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/the-big-picture/story/2010-09-27/the-social-network-citizen-kane-and-the-truth-in-hollywood | en | ‘The Social Network,’ ‘Citizen Kane’ and the truth in Hollywood | https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/64e287b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2400x1260+0+0/resize/1200x630!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fdf%2F45%2F57d858144a2a88575fa2b03080bb%2Flatlogo-ss.jpg | https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/64e287b/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2400x1260+0+0/resize/1200x630!/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fdf%2F45%2F57d858144a2a88575fa2b03080bb%2Flatlogo-ss.jpg | [
"https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/a6/d6/eea0f1094fb281dbea09e0aa79cd/art-caltimes-trademark-3x.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2010-09-27T00:00:00 | This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. | en | /apple-touch-icon.png | Los Angeles Times | https://www.latimes.com/archives/blogs/the-big-picture/story/2010-09-27/the-social-network-citizen-kane-and-the-truth-in-hollywood | This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
When it comes to making movies about real people, Hollywood has a long history of not letting the facts get in the way.
Nearly 70 years ago, there was “Citizen Kane,” chronicling the rise to power of media baron William Randolph Hearst. Now comes “The Social network,” recounting the creation of Facebook by Mark Zuckerberg.
While the movies have a lot in common, both being wildly ambitious dissections of incredibly powerful but deeply flawed media visionaries, their stories feature an elemental difference that speaks volumes about the eras that spawned them. Though both films are a quasi-fictional telling of a real-life character’s story, they present the “truthiness” of their characters in radically different fashions.
When Orson Welles and Herman Mankiewicz wrote “Citizen Kane,” there was never any doubt that Hearst was the central character, even if his name wasn’t mentioned. After all, Mankiewicz knew him well, having spent many a night carousing at Hearst’s parties until he was banned for boozing it up too much. But in the time of “Citizen Kane,” fiction had a literary potency. And of course, when it came to a powerful czar like Hearst, fiction was a protective mechanism.
Welles and Mankiewicz had legitimate cause for concern: The media baron was so enraged by the picture that he banned any advertising or reviews of it in his papers, intimidated many theaters into not showing it, had his reporters attack Welles and pressured MGM chief Louis B. Mayer into offering RKO Pictures $800,000 to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative.
Hearst knew exactly who the movie was about, because in mid-20th-century America, novelists and Hollywood filmmakers were in the habit of using literary devices like roman a clefs to give themselves narrative freedom to base stories on real people. After all, during much of the 20th century, fiction ruled the roost: The ultimate ambition for writers was to be the Great American Novelist, not a celebrated writer of nonfiction.
So when Hemingway wrote “The Sun Also Rises” about his friends in 1920s Europe, he created aliases for everyone, starting with the character Lady Brett Ashley, who is almost entirely based on Lady Duff Twysden, a charismatic British expatriate Hemingway had met in Spain just months before he wrote the novel. When Robert Penn Warren fell under the larger-than-life spell of Louisiana politician Huey P. Long, he transformed him into Willie Stark, who became the protagonist in “All the King’s Men,” Warren’s cautionary tale about political demagoguery.
But times have changed. We live in an age where audiences demand reality, not a thinly veiled equivalent. So while a few films still fictionalize their subjects — the imperious fashion magazine editor in “The Devil Wears Prada” was clearly inspired by Anna Wintour — most movies these days give us the stories of real people, even if the stories don’t hew to the facts.
In the case of “The Social Network,” it’s not even clear what source material the movie is based upon. The filmmakers have said the movie was inspired by Ben Mezrich’s proposal for a book that was ultimately published under the somewhat breathless title “The Accidental Billionaire: The Founding of Facebook — A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal.”
To say that the book itself is not especially fact-based would be an understatement, since Mezrich acknowledges re-creating scenes, changing settings and even saying he used not just the factual record but “my best judgement.” (When Janet Maslin reviewed the book in the New York Times, she said it was “so clearly unreliable that there’s no mistaking it for a serious document.”)
To make matters foggier, “Social Network” screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has said that he didn’t really get a look at the book until his screenplay was nearly finished, having only listened to “Ben reading some notes off his computer.”
David Kirkpatrick, a veteran journalist who recently wrote a book with Zuckerberg’s cooperation called “The Facebook Effect,” has called the movie “horrifically unfair.” Zuckerberg himself has labeled the film “fiction,” and, channeling Hearst, hasn’t allowed ads for “The Social Network” on Facebook. But it almost seems as if he thinks it would be uncool to further challenge the film’s version of events. So this all begs a number of questions:
Is “The Social Network” really about Mark Zuckerberg? Or is he simply a fictional character Sorkin has decided to call Zuckerberg? And if so, should the audience, meaning all of us who will see the movie, feel a little uneasy about just how emotionally involved we should get in a story whose authenticity has so many loose ends? After all, if it isn’t really Zuckerberg on screen, whose life is it anyway?
In Hollywood, filmmakers are quick to argue that they are entitled to fictionalize people’s stories to their heart’s content as long as they do it in the right spirit. In other words: Trust us. When my colleague John Horn asked Danny Boyle why he had added invented sequences to the story of a trapped hiker’s harrowing wilderness experience in his new film, “127 Hours,” Boyle responded: “It may not be factual, but it’s truthful.” When Sorkin was asked by New York magazine’s Mark Harris about scenes in “Social Network” that seem completely invented, he said, “I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling.”
This is sound screenwriting practice — the story always comes first. Though when Herman Mankiewicz did it 70 years ago, at least he didn’t have his cake and eat it too. The modern dramatist largely gets to use real life as modeling clay, happily bending and twisting the character in ways that give the story its most appealing shape and heft. It’s pretty obvious that “The Social Network” wouldn’t have remotely the same buzzworthiness if it were about a fictional social network pioneer named Matt Feinberg.
When it comes to how much reshaping is allowed, our rule book is eminently flexible. The better we like the story and respect its teller, the more slack we cut the film. A thousand and one journalists bashed Norman Jewison’s “The Hurricane,” which took a host of liberties in telling the story of boxer Rubin (Hurricane) Carter, largely because they thought the film was sentimental schlock. British playwright turned screenwriter Peter Morgan has done at least as much dramatic invention with “Frost/Nixon” and “The Queen,” but he’s escaped almost entirely scot-free, largely because critics hold his work (and intentions) in high regard and, of equal importance, none of the principals have ever publicly complained.
When it comes to reshaping reality, the credibility bar has sunk perilously low. Oliver Stone’s “JFK” was filled with so much loopy, outlandishly fictionalized hysteria that by the time he got around to making “W” hardly anyone was shocked by the filmmaker’s invented scenes and idle speculation. Not everyone plays fast and loose with the facts. Steven Soderbergh was scrupulously faithful to the factual record in making “Erin Brockovich” and managed to briefly derail “Moneyball” in part because he wanted to shoot a script that adhered precisely to the film’s source material.
But for the most part, today’s filmmakers feel totally at ease inventing almost any fictional props they need to tell true-life stories. It can make for vivid storytelling, but it also makes for a queasy blurring of the already hazy line between truth and fiction.
In the course of defending “The Hurricane,” Roger Ebert wrote that “those who seek the truth about a man from the film of his life might as well seek it from his loving grandmother.” I think Ebert’s expectations have sunk too low. In Hollywood, if we can’t seek the truth from our best, most gifted storytellers, then whom are we supposed to get it from? | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 96 | https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/12/mank-real-marion-davies-citizen-kane-orson-welles-amanda-seyfried | en | ‘Mank’: The “Dirty Trick” Orson Welles Played on Marion Davies | [
"https://www.vanityfair.com/verso/static/vanity-fair/assets/logo-header.svg",
"https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5fc6a1cfe92c635d9828f894/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Marion%2520Davies%2520Mank.jpg",
"https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5fc54f30e9fd520968482368/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/GettyImages-1262796715.jpg",
... | [] | [] | [
"mank",
"orson welles"
] | null | [
"Joanna Robinson",
"Richard Lawson",
"Vanity Fair",
"Chris Murphy",
"Eric Lutz",
"Chris Smith",
"Erin Vanderhoof",
"Paul Chi",
"Condé Nast"
] | 2020-12-03T08:33:23.090000-05:00 | Can “Mank” and Amanda Seyfried redeem a legacy tarnished by “Citizen Kane”? | en | https://www.vanityfair.com/verso/static/vanity-fair-global/assets/favicon.ico | Vanity Fair | https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2020/12/mank-real-marion-davies-citizen-kane-orson-welles-amanda-seyfried | David Fincher’s new film Mank follows the rocky, boozy road to the great cinematic masterpiece that is 1941’s Citizen Kane. Though it’s a troubled male-genius narrative centered on Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the oft-forgotten screenwriter who fought to claim cowriting credit on the film, the person whose legacy was forever cemented by Citizen Kane is, of course, its director and star Orson Welles. And though Welles has plenty to be proud of when it comes to Kane, there is one regret about it that followed him for the rest of his life.
In 1982, just three years before his death, Welles reflected on Marion Davies, the Hollywood actor who allegedly inspired Citizen Kane’s talentless blonde opera singer, Susan Alexander Kane. “It seemed to me to be something of a dirty trick and still strikes me as something of a dirty trick,” a regretful Welles said. “What we did to her.” Welles also wrote the foreword to Davies’s posthumously published 1975 memoir, The Times We Had: Life with William Randolph Hearst, in which he tried to set the record straight.
Though Charles Foster Kane was indisputably based largely on Davies’s partner, William Randolph Hearst, the truth about Marion and Susan is much more complicated. Fincher gets at that in his film, showing Davies—as portrayed by a top-of-her-game Amanda Seyfried—as she truly was. A rare Hollywood star who successfully made the transition from silent film to talkies, Marion Davies was also a canny producer, dry-wit, universally beloved hostess, and, by all accounts, a clever businesswoman. But thanks in large part to Citizen Kane, Davies has long been misremembered.
Below, get to know the real Marion Davies—who, thanks to Mank, is getting another crack at the legacy she deserves.
THE ZIEGFELD GIRL
Long before she met Hearst, Marion Davies had a head for business and branding. Born in New York as Marion Cecilia Elizabeth Brooklyn Douras, Marion and her sisters changed their name to the anglicized Davies after seeing it splashed across a billboard advertisement. (Her mausoleum in the Hollywood Forever Cemetery reads “Douras.”) Davies pursued a career as a model, showgirl, and ultimately joined the Ziegfeld Follies. But she had an early passion for motion pictures and wrote her own script for what would be her first feature film, 1917’s Runaway Romany, which was directed by her brother-in-law George Lederer. In Mank, it’s George’s son, Charles (Joseph Cross), who reintroduces Herman to his aunt Marion.
Publishing giant William Randolph Hearst (portrayed in Mank by Charles Dance) was already in his late 50s when he first set his sights on a teenaged Davies while she was appearing in the Follies. He quickly formed Cosmopolitan Pictures, signed Davies to an exclusive contract, and began an affair with her that would last the rest of his life. Hearst was married and would remain so—but while he was puritanical about the love lives of others (he reportedly wouldn’t let unmarried couples share a room when they came to stay at his sprawling Hearst castle), he unashamedly and publicly shared his life with Davies.
THE HOLLYWOOD STAR
Hearst took a controlling, suffocating interest in Davies’s film career—and here, according to most, is where it all went wrong for the gifted performer. “Marion Davies was one of the most delightfully accomplished comediennes in the whole history of the screen,” Welles wrote in the foreword to her memoir. “She would have been a star if Hearst had never happened.” In fact, Marion Davies was a star for a time, appearing in films opposite the likes of Clark Gable, Gary Cooper, and Leslie Howard.
In order to speed along Davies’s ascent, Hearst entered into a distribution deal with Paramount and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM), offering the latter’s studio chief Louis B. Mayer (played by Arliss Howard in Mank) the full strength of his media empire in exchange for roles for Davies, but he and Davies disagreed on what kind of parts she should play. She fancied herself a comedian; he preferred her in more serious and dramatic roles. Still, the MGM deal, combined with Davies’s inherent talent and Hearst’s full-court media blitz, shot several Davies films to the top of the box-office charts in 1922 and 1923.
Though it’s impossible to tell how much of Davies’s success is owed to Hearst (probably plenty), her rapid stumble from stardom is usually laid directly at his feet. Davies survived the transition from silent films to talkies, despite struggling offscreen from a stutter. (“I couldn’t act,” Davies quipped in her memoir. “But the idea of silent pictures appealed to me because I couldn’t talk either.”) But Hearst’s machinations overexposed her as he aggressively pushed stories about her into his company’s newsreels. He also founds limits to his influence at MGM, when, as portrayed in Mank, Davies lost the coveted role of Marie Antoinette to Norma Shearer (Jessie Cohen), who just happened to be the wife of MGM’s top producer Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley).
Hearst stormed out of his MGM deal in a snit—and, yes, just as she does in Mank, Davies had to pack up the enormous 11-room bungalow, which served as her dressing room, in pieces and drive it over to Warner Brothers. In the late 1930s, after a reportedly troubled run at Warner Brothers, Davies officially retired from acting.
THE HOSTESS
The more enduring role Marion Davies played in Hollywood was as a charming hostess at both the many soirées she and Hearst would throw at his castle in San Simeon, California—and the wilder nights she would host herself a few hours down the coast, at the Ocean House mansion Hearst bought for her in Santa Monica. Actor David Niven, who wrote revealing Hollywood memoirs in the twilight of this career, is a surprising font of intel on the inner workings of the Davies/Hearst shindigs. He referred to the robust Hearst as a “friendly avocado,” but described Davies as “always warm and gay. Even in repose she seemed about to burst out laughing.”
According to his own biographer, Sheridan Morley, some of Niven’s more colorful anecdotes should be taken with a grain of salt. But there’s bountiful photographic evidence to back up Niven’s account that, as in the final San Simeon scene in Mank, Davies and Hearst were fond of elaborate costume parties:
The parties at Ocean House [...] were strictly Marion, and there with gaiety, generosity, and bubbling fun she entertained her multitude of friends. Each year she gave a costume ball on W.R.’s birthday. There was a 49’er party; a kid party, when Gable came as a boy scout and Joan Crawford as Shirley Temple; an early American party, when Hearst dressed as James Madison, a your-favorite-movie-star party, which saw Gary Cooper as Dr. Fu Manchu and Groucho Marx as Rex the Wonder Horse. But the most lavish of all was the circus party. Two thousand guests assembled. Cary Grant and Paulette Goddard dressed as tumblers and [...] made a most impressive entrance cartwheeling across the floor. Henry Fonda came with a group of clowns; Bette Davis was a bearded lady [...] I don’t remember what Marion wore, but I do remember thinking, in spite of his noble profile, how forlorn and self-conscious W.R. looked as the ringmaster.
Virginia Madsen, who played Davies in the 1985 TV movie The Hearst and Davies Affair, was able to consult with Davies’s stand-in, Vera Burnett, and others who knew the San Simeon hostess firsthand. Masden was dazzled to learn that the quick-witted Davies was the only one who could keep up with Charlie Chaplin in a game of charades. “I couldn’t believe some of the stories people had,” Madsen said during a 1985 interview. “No one ever said a bad word about her. [William Hearst’s wife] Millicent Hearst could have harmed Marion if she’d wanted to, but as far as I know, even she never said a bad word against Marion, and Marion never said a bad word against her.”
THE DRINKER
If Davies had an apparent flaw, it was her fondness for alcohol—and here, as depicted in Mank, may be where the alcoholic Herman Mankiewicz and the charming movie star truly bonded. Mankiewicz was a fixture at the Hearst/Davies parties, but by all accounts the shindigs at San Simeon weren’t exactly wild affairs. Hearst wasn’t fond of hard liquor and set his guests a firm pre-dinner limit before allowing beer and wine with the meal. Niven evocatively wrote that the drinks at cocktail hour “flowed like glue.” According to The Guardian, “anyone who managed to get drunk—Errol Flynn and Dorothy Parker were two lucky ones—would return to their rooms to find their bags packed and a car waiting to take them to the station.” This attitude helps explain Hearst’s extreme disgust at Mank’s drunken display in one of the closing scenes of the film.
But Davies not only hosted much wilder parties of her own at the Ocean House estate (where Niven and Flynn rented a cottage known as “Cirrhosis-by-the-Sea”)—she disobeyed Hearst’s drinking rules in his own castle. One story goes that Davies dropped her gin flask out of her purse at dinner and when the smell became apparent to their guests, Davies quipped to Hearst: “How do you like my new perfume?”
SUSAN FOSTER KANE
“What did Marion ever do to deserve this?” Tom Pelphrey’s Joe Mankiewicz asks after reading brother Herman’s script in the third act of Mank. “It’s not her,” Oldman’s character responds. He swears again to Seyfried’s Davies: “It was never meant to be you.”
Welles claimed the same thing in real life. “We had someone different in the place of Marion Davies,” he said in that 1982 interview. He doubled down in the foreword he wrote for Davies’s memoir, saying that Susan had been inspired by an actual woman—one who was not Davies: “It was a real man who built an opera house for the soprano of his choice. And much in the movie was borrowed from that story. But that man was not Hearst…to Marion Davies she bears no resemblance at all.”
It’s true that you don’t have to look very far to find other, more convincing inspirations for Citizen Kane’s poor, tone-deaf Susan, whom Charles Foster Kane supports with the full strength of his wealth. In 1929, Chicago business magnate Samuel Insull built the Civic Opera House for his songbird of a wife, Gladys. Roger Ebert, meanwhile, named another singer, Ganna Wolska as the inspiration for Susan on his DVD commentary for Citizen Kane. Wolska’s wealthy husband, Harold Fowler McCormick, had attempted to use his fortune and media influence to battle New York Times headlines such as “Mme. Walska Clings to Ambition to Sing.”
Susan does, however, have qualities associated with Davies—like an obsession with jigsaw puzzles. Davies was so famously fond of puzzles that one time, according to The Guardian, “a skilled carpenter and painter [was] brought in to make a perfect replacement for a tiny lost piece.” The Mank anecdote about “Rosebud” being Hearst’s nickname for a certain part of Davies’s anatomy might also have some basis in reality.
Though Davies and Mankiewicz shared a friendship, it is very unlikely that she ever visited him personally to beg that he shelve his Citizen Kane script, as she does in Mank. Hearst virulently opposed the film and effectively used everything in his arsenal to suppress both its theatrical run and its award season bid—but Davies reportedly claimed to have never even seen it.
THE BENEFACTOR
Hearst always made sure to provide Davies with her own income, whether as the president of his Cosmopolitan Pictures, by putting her on the payroll at MGM, or via the enormous amount of property he put in her name. So when Hearst’s lavish spending caught up with him, it was, in fact, Davies who bailed him out. “They were going to foreclose on [Hearst Castle] and Marion sold her jewelry and liquidated stocks and she gave him a million dollars—in the 1930s that was an enormous amount of money—so that he could keep the ranch,” Victoria Kastner, Hearst Castle historian and author of Hearst Ranch: Family, Land and Legacy, said in a 2013 interview. “She actually convinced another girlfriend to give him another million dollars.”
Davies, ever the wise investor, sold her Ocean House in 1945 during a property tax dispute; it is now known as the Marion Davies Guest House. All this means that Davies had plenty of her own money when Hearst died and left her much of his fortune. She “sold her inheritance for $1 back to Hearst Corporation. She didn’t keep it.” Kastner said. “There could have been a court fight, but basically what Marion was saying was, ‘I didn’t do this for money.’ Hearst wanted to be sure she was okay and taken care of when he was gone, but she gave back the inheritance. It really is a love story, you know?”
THE FAITHFUL LOVER
The story of Davies and Hearst, a teenage showgirl and a filthy rich middle-aged businessman, is older than Hollywood itself. But by most accounts, Davies truly was devoted to Hearst until the very end of his life. Sure, there were rumors of affairs, the most high-profile involving her charades partner Charlie Chaplin. That rumor, and an even more unseemly and unsubstantiated one involving the sudden death of producer Thomas Ince on Hearst’s yacht, comprise the plot of Peter Bogdanovich’s The Cat’s Meow, starring Kirsten Dunst as an effervescent and philandering Marion Davies to Eddie Izzard’s Charlie Chaplin.
But even according to Charlie Chaplin’s own wife, Lita Grey Chaplin, Davies was loyal to Hearst. She stayed with the magnate until he died, in 1951. In My Life With Chaplin, Grey Chaplin recalled a revealing conversation she once had with Davies: “God, I’d give everything I have to marry that silly old man,” the actor told her. “Not for the money and security—he’s given me more than I’ll ever need. Not because he’s such a cozy companion, either…. No, you know what he gives me, sugar? He gives me the feeling I’m worth something to him.” According to Virginia Madsen, the feeling was mutual: “She even saved the shavings from his pencil sharpener…. And he loved her and wrote her love letters and poems. Their love was real.”
More Great Stories From Vanity Fair
— The Crown: The True Story of the Queen’s Institutionalized Cousins
— A Real-Life Chess Champion Talks The Queen’s Gambit
— Prince Andrew’s Most Appalling Real-Life Antics Were Left Out of The Crown
— Review: Hillbilly Elegy Is Shameless Oscar Bait
— Inside the Obstinate Life of Bette Davis
— The Crown: What Really Happened When Charles Met Diana
— Diana’s Relationship With Princess Anne Was Even More Rocky Than in The Crown
— From the Archive: Bette Davis on Her Failed Marriages and the Man Who Got Away
— Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now. |