Orson Welles was one of the first iconoclastic filmmakers of the sound era. He managed to be the youngest person to have a contract that allowed him free reign to direct, produce and write any film he could set his theatrical eye on. As shown in this documentary, the film he chose to make would unfortunately be his undoing as far as an illustrious Hollywood career was concerned.
Enter William Randolph Hearst, a newspaper tyrant who ruled Hollywood's actors and producers with an iron fist. It was only inevitable that they were going to crash into eachother on a collision course. This is what the hour and a half documentary "Battle over Citizen Kane" is primarily predicated on. It is commentated by the ever so wonderful voice of the late Richard Ben Cramer, who narrates a lot of documentaries in his own dramatic way. The preface of the documentary is presented by presenter David McCullough who describes these men as "geniuses" both in their own way.
However, I think (as I paraphrase what the journalist Jimmy Breson commented on during the documentary) that Hearst probably underestimated the power of cinema as a tool to destroy a person's reputation. Until Citizen Kane came along...
Now while I do think that the documentary can be over romanticized; Kane has never been confirmed by Welles as being a portrayal of Hearst (though in the 1982 interview, he did make note of the similarities and parallel between Charles Foster Kane and Randolph Hearst; the ruthless ambition, avaricious nature, and the New York Inquirer), and the documentary focused more on Young Welles rather than his later life self, making it seem almost like a Shakespearean battle between the Young Welles and Old dried up Hearst . But when it boils down to the information on both Welles and Hearst, it is an excellent document with lots of different commentators and journalists exploring different anecdotes about their life. The Julius Cesar production by Welles is generally considered the most important work of Shakespeare ever performed on stage according to one of the journalists in the documentary. It delves into the kind of controversy that he evoked in his audience with his stage production, and the War of the Worlds stunt all before Kane became his best known sensation. And Heast's own tabloids exploited the reactions of an entire nation. He could drag an actor's name through dirt if they didn't conform to his rules, and he was hell bent on power above anything else. The documentary painted him as an individual who seen himself as the people's champion, while also being a manipulative magnate who got anything and everything he wished for. His story on the 17 year old murderer who he argued was a victim of modern times is a highlight that shows how cunning he was in his attempts at manipulating public opinion for his own gain.
As the years go on, and the many Sight and Sound polls confirm, Citizen Kane eventually became the most highly praised film of all time by critics everywhere. Welles was the first director to be described as an "auteur" by French critics who coined the term in the 60's. But it wouldn't seem like the film would exist much longer beyond 1941 as one of Hearst's inside people discovered at one of the first showings of Kane that the lead character and his wife was more similar to her boss and his own relationship than she could have possibly imagined.
It is a sublime story of how film became more powerful than the newspapers, and how destructive the
ego can actually be when it gets affected by conflict. Hearst tried to get MGM to destroy the film, but they were unable to do so, especially given the amount of protection that Welles had in his own contract at the time. Though this would cause Welles to be hindered in his future projects, and subsequent films like The Magnificent Ambersons (one of the closest films to that of Welles' own personality) and The Lady from Shanghai (with Rita Hayworth) to be truncated so drastically by all the producers who loathed him. It was poignant in the end, but it goes to show you that, nowadays, Hearst is looked at without much fondness, whereas Welles is loved by many film aficionado's worldwide. If you have ever found newspapers and films fascinating, then I would highly recommend watching this documentary. There is a feeling of fabrication and romanticizaton at times (Jonathan Rosenbaum has his own ambivalent review of the documentary), but the content at its core is really intriguing to learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment