Question about "Battle Over CK" - your thoughts please....

[colwood]

I have been a fan of Welles for about three years now. There is something I've been wondering for about a year now and wanted to ask your opinions.

Like many of you, I purchased CK when it was released on DVD last year. With it of course was "The Battle Over Citizen Kane." I wouldn't say it was the greatest documentary I've ever seen, and I think it could have devoted some more time to the production instead of backstory. But for the most part I enjoyed it and found it to be insightful. Reading these forums and other sites on the net, however, many Welles fans have trashed this docu saying it wasn't good and shouldn't have been included with the DVD. To each his own....

My question, is there something I'm missing as to why so many die-hard Welles fans seem to not like this documentary?

[Welles Fan]

Well, I'll give you an idea. A co-worker of mine bought the Citizen Kane disc when it came out. He is no Wellsian, and probably has not seen anything else directed by Welles, but he is into DVD's and knew Kane was supposed to one of the greatest films ever made, if not the greatest. Well, he liked Kane, found it dazzling. He also liked the "Battle" documentary that was included. He said the documentary made clear to him why Welles' career in mainstream Hollywood was so short-lived: he was a jerk. He may have been talented, but was obviously a jerk who didn't respect people's privacy.

See, the Battle Over Citizen Kane seemed to portray the making of Kane as the story of a good man, who never did any harm (Hearst), and the upstart jerk (Welles) who wanted to make a movie simply to embarrass the great man and his mistress. There were lots of stories about beastly behaviour on Welles' part, while the ruthless yellow journalist's pecadilloes never seemed to get enough emphasis, IMO. As Jeff Wilson, the moderator/author of this site pointed out a while back-remember that during much of the time Welles was allegedly being so terrible (during Julius Caesar, for example) he was in his early twenties and was little more than a kid, if an enfant terrible one. Considering what a high-strung, flaky, intense life theatre/film-making is, it is hardly surprising the young Welles grated on some people. they seemed to go to great lengths to find every unattractive thing they could about this young genius, while Hearst appeared to be living a life and doing things (like starting wars) that was depicted as fairly normal.

And while Hearst and other tycoons (MCormack of Chicago chiefly) provided Welles and screenwriter Manciewicz with background to use in creating Charles Foster Kane, the documentary, IMO portayed Citizen Kane as being made as so to embarrass Hearst as for artistic reasons (which may be somewhat true in Manciewicz' case-he hated Hearst, but the
film was not made so Manciewicz could get "revenge").

I have not seen the documentary since the DVD was released, but my bottom line is this: the documentary makers seemed (IMO) to have an agenda (to defame Welles) and they assembled footage and talking heads for that purpose. It's a free country, and they can say what they want (the documentary was not produced for the DVD, but was a PBS American Experience episode originally), but I hardly see why this documentary was chosen for a DVD package that for many was Introduction to Welles 101. I wonder how many people were left with the perception my friend at work had-that Welles made one great film at someone else's expense, and never made anything else of significance because he was a jerk? I think it was a wrong impression to give to an audience, many of whom were new to Welles. There was a great documentary series on the RKO studios from about 15 or so years ago, and the episode on the Welles years would have made a great documentary for the Kane disc. They may have been unable to get the rights, and so settled for what they could get. I think in this case, "less" would have been more.
My long-winded 2¢.

[Jeff Wilson]

I would agree with most of what Welles Fan said above; my main beef with the documentary is that it presents Welles' career as being finished with Kane, and that the "battle" between Hearst and Welles was somehow fated to be. Considering that Welles had Heart of Darkness a hair away from being produced, and Smiler With a Knife in the works before Kane as well, this seems just a tad offbase. Hearst was, from what I've read of him, a bully and a major asshole, and any damage he took from Kane was more than deserved. On the flip side, Welles was doubtless an arrogant guy at that point, but still a kid who had no idea what he was in for.

Welles' downfall, in terms of Hollywood and if you really want to call it that, came with Ambersons, and the mistakes that went into its production. Welles was always going to be a guy who fought with the money men, and if it hadn't been over Kane and Ambersons, it would have been something else. The Battle docu makes Welles look like a guy who was a failure because he didn't play the Hollywood game, which I think distorts who Welles really was.

[jaime marzol]

.......................

the ideal kane package would have a supplement documentary explaining it scene by scene, pointing out inference, rhetoric, framing, sound, style and form pushing the narrative, contrasts, set-ups and pay-offs, then maybe the average joe won't say, "fuck, this movie sucks!." i've heard such comments so many times.

[MAG]

The documentary that's referenced by Welles Fan above is Hollywood: The Golden Years (shown on TCM and AMC from time to time). I can't remember how many parts it was divided into, but know that the series was all about RKO Studios, with one entire part about Kane and Ambersons. It was among my earliest exposures to Welles, and I consider it one of the best-made documentaries I've ever seen. It repeats many of the letters and interviews referenceing the 2 films printed in Frank Brady's book, but for those who are new to Welles and unlikely to turn to such books, this documentary is loaded with information about *every* person involved in the production of Welles' RKO movies, directly or indirectly. Welles was indeed young, cocky and foolish in some of his actions, but it's nearly impossible to view all of the details covered and *not* feel sympathetic to Welles anyway. It's truly the definitive reference that should have been included with the Kane DVD.

[jaime marzol]

.................

HOLLYWOOD, THE GOLDEN YEARS is a Thames documentary, it's divided into about 15, 60-minute segments, i have about 10 of them, and it's TREMENDOUS! it covers the silent era.

The one Wellesfan refers to, is called THE RKO STORY, the full title is, HOLLYWOOD, THE GOLDEN YEARS: THE RKO STORY. it's equally tremendous. i guess it's like part 2, same producer, leslie megahey. it's divided into 5, 60-minute segments, and i also think it's the best thing going on welles, except for the BBC's ORSON WELLES STORY. the OW STORY covers his whole life, with the master himself on screen, and THE RKO STORY welles segment covers the RKO years. the other 4 segments are equally well researched, and presented, and there is no axe to grind.

......................

[Welles Fan]

I have a couple of episodes of the RKO thingmie on tape. Besides the one on Welles, the one on the Film Noir style is also good (I think it's called "Dark Victory"). Also, I remember being fascinated with the last episode which explained how Howard Hughes ran the studio and a few careers into the ground, basically so he could bed a few starlets.

[jaime marzol]

....................

yeap, the hughes segment is great. noah deitrich's accounts are great, and he also wrote a book about his experiences with hughes. tcm aired a hughes documentary called HOWARD HUGHES AND HIS WOMEN, which is a nice companion piece to RKO STORY's hughes segment.

and for any hughes fans, there is a book called HOWARD HUGHES, THE HIDDEN YEARS, by james phelan, that is just great. very cinematic. one day some one will discover it and make a great film out of it, or at least a made for TV HBO thing.

[colwood]

I thank you all for your opinions, they certainly gave me something to think about.

I re-watched "The Battle..." today with your comments in mind. One of the arguments made said that the fault of the docu was that Welles was painted as a pompous failure and Hearst was painted as the wronged senior citizen. To me, the filmmakers' argument seemed to be that the Hearst "portrayed" in CK was not the a mirror image of the real-life Hearst. They seemed to me to always point out that with money and power, he did whatever he wanted, to whomever he wanted. I, for example, didn't feel that they depicted "starting wars" as fairly normal; they seemed to depict them as fairly normal for Hearst with his power. Toward the very end of the doc, yes they seem to try to soften his image, but I thought that was only to emphasize their argument that because of the film, Hearst, to many people, WAS Charles Foster Kane.

As for Welles, many have seemed to agree with the argument that he was extremly talented but with being so young, he seemed to operate without or against the standard rules. Was he setting himself up for failure? Well it depends on how you look at that. I don't believe he went into CK with the express purpose of pissing off Hearst. But on the other hand, when you don't seem to play by "the rules," you're young, considered a "boy wonder" and in your first film you end up (as opposed to begin) targeting one of the most powerful men in media, you're not helping yourself. I wouldn't say that the doc had the express purpose of showing why Welles was seen as a failure after Kane. But on the other hand, I think they should have shown him in a better light once the "Battle" over the film was behind him. I think the easiest way of doing that would have been to spend, even five minutes, explaining the argument of why Ambersons was not truly a "Welles film."

Was the doc sympathetic towards Welles at the end of his life as they were towards Hearst at the end of his life? Not very much. They seem to portray him as somebody who failed because he wouldn't play the game. I am NOT very knowledged of the later years of Orson's life. But in the few books about him that I've read and the few interviews I have heard, the doc seems to take the stance even Orson seemed to see himself in; that of a director, who spent more time hustling for money than he could spend making his films. If the stories of always trying to find money as you look for control and opportunity from seemingly younger and younger studio and movie people were true, and I don't doubt it, then yes, I think they showed him in a sympathetic light, as least to me.

Yes, I'm sure there are other docs they could have used. I would also like to see one that examines Kane as film and in terms of movie making. But for the most part, I think that's what Ebert's commentary did, which I greatly enjoyed.

Why did he "fail?" To me it has always seemed that he didn't "succeed" again because he had power in radio, had power in theater, and had power with Kane. It seemed that once he lost power with Ambersons, nobody wanted to give him more, and without money of his own to make films, he was never able to make the film he wanted as he wanted.

But that's just my opinion. I'm hoping to find and see the RKO doc that many of you have suggested. Perhaps I'll better understand why you feel the way you do and possibly even reshape my opinion.

And as for the story of the co-worker who thought Welles failed because he was a jerk, frankly I find that to be a very narrow-minded view. IF that was the case, then how would any handful of actors or directors from Hollywood's history (even current ones) succeed when many are clearly more than jerks?

[colwood]

But, as I have just re-read and realize your point, if "the Battle" was likely his first exposure to Welles as a person, Welles 101 so to speak, I can see why many objected to its inclusion with the CK dvd.

[Welles Fan]

I think it was Pauline Kael who first suggested that a fault with Kane is that it did not follow Hearst's life closely enough. But, the movie was not a biography, and really did not owe to any of its subjects an accurate portrayal of the people who were used as inspiration for the story. And remember, there is almost as much Robert McCormack in Kane as Hearst.

Also, Charles Foster Kane, for all his faults in the movie, is still a flashy, impressive figure, and at the end, I think most viewers, like the reporter Thompson "can't help feeling sorry for Mr Kane". I don't think too many people even noticed when Wm Randolph Hearst died.

The most egregious fault in the doc is the idea of Welles as a failure, and why this happened. I notice, colwood, that you put failed and succeeded in quotes, which is as it should be. Most of us at this board who are Welles fans (yourself included) do not consider Welles a failure at all. He may have failed to stay within a mainstream studio system, but he did not fail to make great films. The doc IMO failed to point out that some great (perhaps even greater) films were to be made by Welles after the RKO years. I am sure a Welles neophyte, after watching the doc, will not line up to buy Chimes at Midnight if it is ever released. (Again, the doc was made for a PBS historical series, and I cannot expect them to have felt it important to tell the audience about later Welles films. Still, it seems the image of Welles "hustling for money" for his films lingers with people, while the dedication behind the hustling, and the rich films which resulted, are often overlooked.)

[LA]

I think the major flaw of BOCK is it's apparent desire to be "even-handed" about Welles and Hearst. Both were, apparently, two sides of the same coin, destined to clash. There's one main problem with this "equalising" thesis: it simply ain't so.

Welles' faults: he could be brash and arrogant, and on occaision ate too much.

Hearst's faults: gave Mussolini and Hitler monetary support and column space in his newspapers during their "early years", as well as having almost certainly had at least two people killed.

I know which one I'd rather buy a used car from.

Welles Fan said: "Most of us at this board who are Welles fans (yourself included) do not consider Welles a failure at all. He may have failed to stay within a mainstream studio system, but he did not fail to make great films."

Indeed. I think the problem is that so many of these "Welles was a brilliant failure" comments come from those institutionalised by the system, who don't want to encourage the public to explore non-Hollywood cinema, and especially don't want to admit that an American filmmaker found a creatively viable alternative to Hollywood. Or am I being a conspiracy theorist?

[Obssessed_with_Orson]

i thought this whole citizen kane situation was because some old fart - hearst, was seeing in a talented, young good-looking man - orson.

to me, mr. hearst must have thought that he was everything. and then came orson. if the movie had come out successfully, mr hearst would be dumped, lost power he had, etc.

i mean a young good-looking fellow replacing an old fart. come on now, when you have power, money, newspapers, etc. you have everything. if citizen kane had come out the way it was supposed to come out, all of the above would have gone to orson. and mr hearst would have been (poofed)

bye now!

on the battle over citizen kane, i suggest watching rko281. at least once. to me the following quote ("fuck, this movie sucks!.") deserved to be next to rko281.

[jaime marzol]

......................

according to orson, it wasn't hearst so much that came after him, but it was all the hatchet men in his organization, to show the boss that they were on the ball.

somewhere i read that hearst enjoyed watching himself in the film. that davies was not insulted, and did not crumble crying when she saw the person equated with her in the film. i think it was charles lederer that said to bogdanovich that davies read the script and was not bothered by it.

the problem with BOCK is that the creators didn't bother to look at welles' carreer after kane. they summed him up as a failure, and a hustler. they were not aware that welles topped himself with every film he made, regardless of studio tampering, and crippling money shortages. they could have said that instead of calling him a vagabon.

BOCK, true to it's nationality, mirrors all the stuff said about welles in american made documentatries; they use words like failure, charlatan, hustler, burned out-boy-genius, etc.