subscribe to this page
"Citizen Welles Raises Kane." 27 January 1941. 9 April 2008 <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,801256,00.html>.
This article taken from the January 27, 1941 issue of Time magazine was written shortly after the movie was completed, but a good three months before the theatrical release on May 1st, 1941. The article, written after the initial press screening of Citizen Kane describes the very initial reaction of William Randolph Hearst’s “Cinecolumnist” Lolly Parsons after she sees a private screening of the film with her two lawyers and chauffer. RKO’s first screening of the film included invitations to Hollywood’s “journalistic elite” with the notable exception of Hearst’s representatives. This raising an initial suspicion, compelled Ms. Parsons to insist on a special showing for her review. Though told by Orson Welles that the movie was not about Mr. Hearst, she noted obvious similarities and appealed to RKO to halt the release of Citizen Kane. Hearst’s papers made no mention of the film. The article was written before the official release date was set and claims that RKO has decided to release it in the following month of February. I was also written before Hearst’s famous $800,000 offer to offset the production costs and halt the release.
This article is a fascinating account of the first weeks of the memorable Hollywood clash of Hearst vs. RKO regarding the release of Welles’s potentially libel-generating film Citizen Kane. There are many obvious similarities between Charles Foster Kane and William Randolph Hearst, and Hearst, among others is assumed to be a main inspiration for the movie and the famous character. Ms. Parsons, Hearst’s film columnist, cites the most obvious comparisons to be the multiple relationships Kane has with different women in his younger years and the “wholesale grabs of Europe’s artistic offscourings.” Because of temporal limitations, the article only touches the very beginning of the altercations between Hearst, RKO and Welles. The Hearst newspapers make no mention of the film, it is never reviewed, and eventually he makes an $800,000 offer to keep the film off the market. The 25-year-old Orson Welles reaches – as many consider – his peak. From here, he has a rapid falling out of Hollywood and mainstream cinema for many years.
This article taken from the January 27, 1941 issue of Time magazine was written shortly after the movie was completed, but a good three months before the theatrical release on May 1st, 1941. The article, written after the initial press screening of Citizen Kane describes the very initial reaction of William Randolph Hearst’s “Cinecolumnist” Lolly Parsons after she sees a private screening of the film with her two lawyers and chauffer. RKO’s first screening of the film included invitations to Hollywood’s “journalistic elite” with the notable exception of Hearst’s representatives. This raising an initial suspicion, compelled Ms. Parsons to insist on a special showing for her review. Though told by Orson Welles that the movie was not about Mr. Hearst, she noted obvious similarities and appealed to RKO to halt the release of Citizen Kane. Hearst’s papers made no mention of the film. The article was written before the official release date was set and claims that RKO has decided to release it in the following month of February. I was also written before Hearst’s famous $800,000 offer to offset the production costs and halt the release.
This article is a fascinating account of the first weeks of the memorable Hollywood clash of Hearst vs. RKO regarding the release of Welles’s potentially libel-generating film Citizen Kane. There are many obvious similarities between Charles Foster Kane and William Randolph Hearst, and Hearst, among others is assumed to be a main inspiration for the movie and the famous character. Ms. Parsons, Hearst’s film columnist, cites the most obvious comparisons to be the multiple relationships Kane has with different women in his younger years and the “wholesale grabs of Europe’s artistic offscourings.” Because of temporal limitations, the article only touches the very beginning of the altercations between Hearst, RKO and Welles. The Hearst newspapers make no mention of the film, it is never reviewed, and eventually he makes an $800,000 offer to keep the film off the market. The 25-year-old Orson Welles reaches – as many consider – his peak. From here, he has a rapid falling out of Hollywood and mainstream cinema for many years.
tagged citizen hearst insiration kane parsons rko supression time_magazine
by andersjc
...on 10-APR-08
Crowther, Bosley. "The Ambiguous ‘Citizen Kane’ :Orson Welles, in His First Motion Picture, Creates a Titanic Character Which Does Everything but Explain Itself ." New York Times (1857-Current file) [New York, N.Y.] 4 May 1941, X5. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004). ProQuest. Van Pelt Library University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 9 Apr 2008 http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:2100/
Bosley Crowther was a film critic for the New York Times. He is one of the first critics to call Citizen Kane the best movie of all time.
Crowther wrote a glowing review of Citizen Kane on May 2nd, 1941, the day after the premiere in New York. He was so impressed with the film that four days after the premiere, he wrote in this article that Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane could be the greatest movie of all time. He conceded that he might have been going out on a limb and that the felt slightly uneasy about this bold declaration, but that he knew that the film was vastly superior to average film of the day. He wrote that because the film maker was so young – only 25 –he was not sure how the future would fare for Welles. He commented about the movie’s hyped-up release and stated that at the premiere, the film was “riding the crest of the most provocative publicity wave ever to float a motion picture.” This wave of publicity was caused by Hearst’s insistence that the film be taken off of the market before it was even released. Crowther wrote about the viewers reactions to the portrayal of the media tycoon. Even though not a single “black mark” is made against the character, the audience still walked away with a vague idea of the rash techniques used by ruthless publishers. This juxtaposes the films portrayal of Kane as an honest publisher. Crowther then wrote about the ending of the film and how he felt that it increased the complexity of the film because the ending didn’t explain itself. He was of the opinion that Welles was a brilliant filmmaker, but because he was so young, he would need more experience in the discipline.
This article is groundbreaking with respect to the fact that it is one of the first to hail Welles’s movie as a masterpiece and one of the greatest movies ever made. In the years after the film, its popularity waned at first but then began to increase with time. When one looks today at various organization’s rankings of the best movies of all time (eg Time, AFI, IMDB), usually Citizen Kane tops the list. One might think that Crowther’s positive reviews of the film would inspire more viewership, however the film was not a blockbuster and it seems that Hearst’s attempts at suppressing it were effective.
Bosley Crowther was a film critic for the New York Times. He is one of the first critics to call Citizen Kane the best movie of all time.
Crowther wrote a glowing review of Citizen Kane on May 2nd, 1941, the day after the premiere in New York. He was so impressed with the film that four days after the premiere, he wrote in this article that Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane could be the greatest movie of all time. He conceded that he might have been going out on a limb and that the felt slightly uneasy about this bold declaration, but that he knew that the film was vastly superior to average film of the day. He wrote that because the film maker was so young – only 25 –he was not sure how the future would fare for Welles. He commented about the movie’s hyped-up release and stated that at the premiere, the film was “riding the crest of the most provocative publicity wave ever to float a motion picture.” This wave of publicity was caused by Hearst’s insistence that the film be taken off of the market before it was even released. Crowther wrote about the viewers reactions to the portrayal of the media tycoon. Even though not a single “black mark” is made against the character, the audience still walked away with a vague idea of the rash techniques used by ruthless publishers. This juxtaposes the films portrayal of Kane as an honest publisher. Crowther then wrote about the ending of the film and how he felt that it increased the complexity of the film because the ending didn’t explain itself. He was of the opinion that Welles was a brilliant filmmaker, but because he was so young, he would need more experience in the discipline.
This article is groundbreaking with respect to the fact that it is one of the first to hail Welles’s movie as a masterpiece and one of the greatest movies ever made. In the years after the film, its popularity waned at first but then began to increase with time. When one looks today at various organization’s rankings of the best movies of all time (eg Time, AFI, IMDB), usually Citizen Kane tops the list. One might think that Crowther’s positive reviews of the film would inspire more viewership, however the film was not a blockbuster and it seems that Hearst’s attempts at suppressing it were effective.