pauline kael raising kane part 2

The pictures were all expensively produced, and most of them were financial failures. . Clip Job: an excerpt every day from the Voice archives. The most one can hope for, generally, is to catch on to a few late links in the chain. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1971/02/27/raising-kane-ii Not that Miss Kael makes any extravagant claims about the supposed greatness of the film on which she has devoted so much newsprint. Welles lost his magic touch, and as his films began to be diffuse he acquired the reputation of being an intellectual, difficult-to-understand artist. Something of the young, unmasked man is revealed in these scenes—to be closed off forever after. He knows where all the bodies are buried.” It’s an odd, cryptic speech. He apparently didn’t have any idea that he was in serious trouble. And without that the spirit that makes Kane so likable a bastard is missing. Hearst supplanted the old-style quiet upper-class journalism with his penny-dreadful treatment of crime and sex and disasters, his attacks on the rich, his phony lawsuits against the big corporations that he called “predators,” his screaming patriotism, his faked photographs, and his exploitation of superstition, plus puzzles, comics, contests, sheet music, and medical quackery. The latter days of Susan Alexander as a tawdry-looking drunken singer at El Rancho in Atlantic City, where she is billed as “Susan Alexander Kane”—which tells us at once that she is so poor an entertainer that she must resort to this cheap attempt to exploit her connection with Kane—may have been lifted from the frayed end of Evelyn Nesbit’s life. “Man of Aran,” with its excessive sea-pounding on the soundtrack making it as falsely exotic in its own time as “Ramparts of Clay” is in ours, was certainly never conceived in crowd-pleasing terms. Pauline Kael and John Houseman say no. And I would argue that what redeems movies in general, what makes them so much easier to take than other arts, is that many talents in interaction in a work can produce something more enjoyable than one talent that is not of the highest. Sensing the unity of Kane and Welles, audiences assume that Kane is Welles’ creation, that Welles is playing “the role he was born to play,” while film scholars, seeing the material from Welles’ life in the movie, interpret the film as Welles working out autobiographical themes. Rosebud has become part of popular culture, and people remember it who have forgotten just about everything else in “Citizen Kane;” the jokes started a week before the movie opened, with a child’s sled marked “Rosebud” dragged onstage in the first act of “Native Son,” and a couple of years ago, in “Peanuts,” Lucy walked in the snow with a sled and Snoopy said “Rosebud?? Will be used in accordance with our Privacy Policy. Seeing the movie again recently, I liked the way it looked; now that the style no longer boded a return to the aestheticism of sets and the rigidly arranged figures of the German silents, I could enjoy it without misgivings. Working on “Kane,” in an atmosphere of freedom, the designers and technicians came forth with ideas they’d been bottling up for years; they were all in on the creative process. I think what makes Welles’ directorial style so satisfying in this movie is that we are constantly aware of the mechanics—that the pleasure “Kane” gives doesn’t come from illusion but comes from our enjoyment of the dexterity of the illusionists and the working of the machinery. Though Rosebud was in the long first draft, it didn’t carry the same weight there, because the newspaper business itself undermined Kane’s idealism. (The former Mrs. McCormick attended, wearing, according to one newspaper report, “her gorgeous diamond necklace, almost an inch wide and reaching practically to her waist”; Mrs. Insull wore pearls and “a wide diamond bracelet.”) Mankiewicz must have placed the episode of the opera house in Chicago in order to give it roots—to make it connect with what the public already knew about Chicago and robber barons and opera. In addition, Mankiewicz may have wanted to score off his movie friends who since the middle thirties—the period of the Popular Front—had also been draping themselves in the flag. In that draft, Kane, like Hearst, in order to reach the masses he thought he wanted to serve and protect, built circulation by turning the newspapers into pulp magazines, and, in order to stay in business and expand, squeezed non-advertisers. He asked me whether I would work with Mankiewicz as editor and collaborator on the script. Mankiewicz wrote, I mostly edited and the nurse was bored. And it was in terms of this framework that the elements of admiration in the ambivalent portrait of Kane made sense. Mankiewicz, catering to the public, gave it the empty, stupid, no-talent blonde it wanted—the “confidential” backstairs view of the great gracious lady featured in the Hearst press. There doesn’t appear to be any waste material in “Kane,” because he charges right through the weak spots as if they were bright, and he almost convinces you (or does convince you) that they’re shining jewels. I don’t mean to suggest that a good movie is just a mess that happens to work (although there have been such cases)—only that a good movie is not always the result of a single artistic intelligence. For some years, whenever it was possible, he had been supervising the set construction of his films, so that he could plan the lighting. © 2021 Condé Nast. . His later thrillers are portentous without having anything to portend, sensational in a void, entertaining thrillers, often, but mere thrillers. When I looked up his credits as a cameraman, the name “Mad Love” rang a bell; I closed my eyes and visualized it, and there was the Gothic atmosphere, and the huge, dark rooms with lighted figures, and Peter Lorre, bald, with a spoiled-baby face, looking astoundingly like a miniature Orson Welles. And Mankiewicz was by temperament a reckless, colorful newspaperman. Looking for “the secret” of a famous man’s last words is about as phony as the blind-beggar-for-luck bit, yet it does “work” for some people; they go for the idea that Rosebud represents lost maternal bliss and somehow symbolizes Kane’s loss of the power to love or be loved The one significant change from Hearst’s life—Kane’s separation from his parents—seems to be used to explain Kane, though there is an explicit disavowal of any such intention toward the end. Now, after his death, the Luce organization is trying to get back into film activities. Charity functions of which she was the queen would be splashed all over the society pages, and the movie would be reviewed under eight-column headlines. Both the parodistic use of Timese and the facelessness of Luce’s company men served a historical purpose in the first script. Because of the moderate financial returns on “Kane,” he lost the freedom to control his own productions; after “Kane,” he never had complete control of a movie in America. Welles has never been able to write this kind of vehicle for himself. Since sound came in, almost every time an actor has scored in a role and become a “star,” it has been because the role provided a realistic base for contradictory elements. But “Rules of the Game” and “Rashomon” are something else again even in French and Japanese respectively. Marion Davies was a mimic and a parodist and a very original sort of comedienne, but though Hearst liked her to make him laugh at home, he wanted her to be a romantic maiden in the movies, and—what was irreconcilable with her talent—dignified. He could point out that Marion wasn’t a singer and that Hearst had never built an opera house for her—and it was true, she wasn’t and he hadn’t, but she was an actress and he did run Cosmopolitan Pictures for her. When Welles was only thirty-six, the normally gracious Walter Kerr referred to him as “an international joke, and possibly the youngest living has been.” Welles had the special problems of fame without commercial success. DEAR WHEELER, YOU PROVIDE THE PROSE POEMS, I’LL PROVIDE THE WAR. Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted, and then lost it. The departure from Hearst’s life represented by Susan Alexander’s opera career, which is a composite of the loves and scandals of several Chicago tycoons, didn’t weaken the attack on Hearst—it strengthened it. Many years later, Welles remarked, “Like most performers, I naturally prefer a live audience to that lie-detector full of celluloid.” Maybe his spoiled-baby face was just too nearly perfect for the role, and he knew it, and knew the hostile humor that lay behind Mankiewicz’s putting so much of him in the role of Hearst the braggart self-publicist and making Kane so infantile. For instance, for fifty years, said Orson, Hearst did nothing but scream about the Yellow Peril, and then he gave up his seat and hopped off two months before Pearl Harbor.”, In 1947, Ferdinand Lundberg sued Orson Welles, Herman J. Mankiewicz, and R.K.O. What is strange about reseeing a movie that one reacted to fairly intensely many years ago is that one may respond exactly the same way to so many details and be aware each time of having responded that way before. When Toland provided Welles with the silent-picture setups that had been moribund under Karl Freund’s direction, Welles used them in a childlike spirit that made them playful and witty. “Raising Kane” At the time the film was released, the most perceptive movie critic in the United States was Otis Ferguson (an early volunteer and early casualty in the Second World War), on the New Republic. Welles picks up assurance and flair as Kane in his thirties, and he’s also good when Kane is just a little older and jowly. Mankiewicz said that Welles had been brooding over the credits, that he could see how beautiful they would be: “Produced by Orson Welles. ... Part of: The Successful Creative Series (3 Books) 4.4 out of 5 stars 114. in “2001.” There is something childlike—and great, too—about his pleasure in the magic of theatre and movies. She says that many of the Griffith stars were “payoffs.”) Marion Davies had more talent than most of the reigning queens, but Hearst and Louella were too ostentatious, and they never let up. Pauline Kael’s two-part article on “Citizen Kane” (“Raising Kane” — the New Yorker, February 20 and 27, 1971) reportedly began as a brief introduction to the published screenplay, but, like Topsy, it just grew and grew into a 50,000-word digression from “Kane” itself into the life and times and loves and hates and love-hates of Pauline Kael. “Kane” depends not on naturalistic believability but on our enjoyment of the very fact that those actions are completed, and that they all fit into place. That reckless cartoon was the turning point in Hearst’s political career. Welles’ magic as a director (at this time) was that he could put his finger right on the dramatic fun of each scene. At every point along the way, the studio craftsmen tried something out. Mary Garden quit after one year there, calling it “that long black hole,” and in 1932, when Insull’s mammoth interlocking directorate of power plants collapsed and he fled to Greece, the opera house was closed. had become one of Howard Hughes’ toys in the late forties, and a crew of expensive lawyers was hired. Thus Kane was emotionally stunted. (Leading men were afraid to kiss her; Hearst was always watching.) Welles had a vitalizing, spellbinding talent; he was the man who brought out the best in others and knew how to use it. D. W. Griffith owed Howey a favor for getting “The Birth of a Nation” and “Intolerance” past the Chicago censors, and her movie contract was the payoff. When the storm died down, Hearst became super-American. Welles was typically on television during these days trying to raise money for The Other Side of the Wind. On-line books store on Z-Library | B–OK. 74-82. It’s a gimmick, really, and rather dollar-book Freud.”, Welles may have been goaded into malice; he had probably never come up against a man so well equipped to deal with him as Mankiewicz. George S. Kaufman and Morrie Ryskind had worked opera over in two of the Marx Brothers pictures; Mankiewicz had been taken off “A Night at the Opera,” but what he and Welles—with the assistance of Bernard Herrmann—did to opera in “Citizen Kane” was in almost exactly the same style, and as funny. In Mankiewicz’s original conception, in the long first-draft “American,” which ran three hundred and twenty-five pages, that device is more clearly integral to the theme. Insull didn’t build the opera house for his wife (dainty little Gladys Wallis didn’t sing), but there was a story to it, and it was the biggest opera story of the decade. We pay awful well for long excerpts. FREE Shipping by Amazon. “Kane” used so much of Hearst’s already legendary life that for liberals it was like a new kind of folk art; we knew all this about Hearst from books and magazines but gasped when we saw it on the big movie screen, and so defiantly—almost contemptuously—undisguised. It’s a scene like the ones Mankiewicz helped prepare for the Marx Brothers, but what was probably intended to make fun of a stuffed shirt turned into making fun of a helpless old man trying to keep his dignity, which is mean and barbarous. Welles had worked as an actor for the “March of Time” radio program in 1934 and 1935, and he had worked steadily as a narrator and radio actor (his most famous role was the lead in the popular weekly mystery show “The Shadow”) until he went to Hollywood. Seeing Welles’ facial resemblance to the tiny Lorre—even to the bulging eyes and the dimpled, sad expression—Toland probably suggested the makeup and the doll-like, jerky use of the body for Kane in his rage and as a lonely old man, and, having enjoyed the flamboyant photographic effect of the cockatoo in “Mad Love,” suggested that, too. Mankiewicz went on writing scripts, but his work in the middle and late forties is not in the same spirit as “Kane.” It’s rather embarrassing to look at his later credits, because they are yea-saying movies—decrepit “family pictures” like “The Enchanted Cottage” and “The Spanish Main.” The booze and the accidents finally added up, and he declined into the forties sentimental slop. (And as Welles doesn’t project any sexual interest in either Kane’s first wife, Emily, or in Susan, his second wife, we don’t know how to interpret Susan’s claim that he just likes her voice.) Paperback $25.00 $ 25. Starring Orson Welles.” It was perfect until he got to “Herman J. Mankiewicz” in the writing credit, which spoiled everything. He stated that “I have done no research into the life of William Randolph Hearst at any time,” and that “in writing the screenplay of ‘Citizen Kane’ I drew entirely upon my own observations of life,” and then was helpless to explain how there were so many episodes from Hearst’s life in the movie. “Raising Kane,” Kael’s two-part piece, caused a stir when it was released in the pages of the New Yorker in February 1971. The imitation “March of Time” was not a new device, even in movies; it had already been used, though humorlessly, to convey the fact that a theme was current, part of “today’s news,” and to provide background information—as in “Confessions of a Nazi Spy,” of 1939. Nevertheless, the structure of the picture—searching for the solution to a mystery—and the exaggerated style make it appear that Rosebud is the key to Kane’s life, and the public responds to what is presented dramatically, not to the reservations of the moviemakers. And it wasn’t just any little car he hit; it was one driven by Lee Gershwin—Ira Gershwin’s wife, Lenore, a woman Mankiewicz had known for years. Ferguson saw more clearly than anybody else what was specifically good and bad in “Kane,” and though he was wrong, I think, in maintaining that unobtrusive technique is the only good technique, he did perceive that “Citizen Kane” challenged this concept. Opera and the Insulls provided cover for Mankiewicz and Welles. Toland, although he used deep focus again later, reverted to a more conventional look for the films following “Kane,” directed by men who rejected technique “for its own sake,” but he had passed on Freund’s techniques to Welles. Author of Kiss kiss bang bang, Going steady, 5001 nights at the movies, I lost it at the movies, I lost it at the movies, Raising Kane, Movie love, Hooked Pauline Kael | Open Library Donate ♥ Miss Kael deserves her byline because she has shaped her material, much of it unoriginal, into an article with a polemical thrust all her own. He had already seen eight years’ service as a child genius. In “Kane,” as in the German silents, depth was used like stage depth, and attention was frequently moved from one figure to another within a fixed frame by essentially the same techniques as on the stage—by the actors’ moving into light or by a shift of the light to other actors (rather than by the fluid camera of a Renoir, which follows the actors, or the fragmentation and quick cutting of the early Russians). The Kane amalgam may also contain a dab or two from the lives of other magnates, such as Frank Munsey and Pulitzer, and more than a dab from the life of Jules Brulatour, who got his start in business by selling Eastman Kodak film. On a popular level, however, his limitations worked to his advantage; they tied in with the myth of the soulless rich. The scandals in the long draft—some of it, set in Italy during Kane’s youth, startlingly like material that came to the screen twenty years later in “La Dolce Vita”—served a purpose beyond crowd pleasing: to show what a powerful man could cover up and get away with. He is now all but ignored even in many accounts of “Citizen Kane.” By the fifties, his brother Joe—with “A Letter to Three Wives” and “All About Eve”—had become the famous wit in Hollywood, and there wasn’t room for two Mankiewiczes in movie history; Herman became a parenthesis in the listings for Joe. Hearst represented a colorful kind of journalism that was already going out. And he lost the collaborative partnerships that he needed. Search. Though Mankiewicz provided the basic apparatus for it, that magical exuberance which fused the whole scandalous enterprise was Welles’. The funny thing is that Mankiewicz, in commenting on Hearst’s lack of vision, overestimated Luce’s vision. Welles had just the right background for the sound era. When he appears on television to recite from Shakespeare or the Bible, he is introduced as if he were the epitome of the highbrow; it’s television’s more polite way of cutting off his necktie. Also, there are times when the magic of movies fails. To revisit this article, select My⁠ ⁠Account, then View saved stories. The craftsmen were so ingenious about giving Welles the effects he wanted that even now audiences aren’t aware of how cheaply made “Citizen Kane” was. Pauline Kael (/ k eɪ l /; 19. jun 1919 – 3. septembar 2001) bila je američka filmska kritičarka, najpoznatija po recenzijama koje je pisala za ugledni časopis The New Yorker od 1968. do 1991. godine, i koje su joj donijele reputaciju najuticajnije kritičarke u historiji filma. In the condensation, the whole direction was, for commercial reasons, away from the newspaper business that dominated the early script, and, for obvious reasons, away from factual resemblances to Hearst’s life. It is only by virtually ignoring what “Citizen Kane” became as a film that Miss Kael can construct her bizarre theory of film history, namely that “Citizen Kane” along with all the best moments in movies of the ’30s must be credited to a consortium of New Yorker writers gathered together by Harold Ross at Chasen’s, the West Coast auxiliary of the Algonquin. In Welles’ far more extreme use of deep focus, and in his arrangement of the actors in the compositions, he swung back to the most coercive use of artificial, theatrical lighting. And, borrowing from Pauline Kael’s discredited 1971 New Yorker article “Raising Kane,” it accuses him of being a credit thief. The plot thickens considerably when Miss Kael drifts away from a half-hearted analysis of “Kane” to the most lively gossip imaginable about the alleged birth-pangs and labor-pains of the script. Mankiewicz wrote the first draft in about three months and tightened and polished it into the final shooting script of “Citizen Kane” in a few more weeks, and he probably didn’t get more than eight or nine thousand dollars for the whole job; according to the cost sheets for the movie, the screenplay cost was $34,195.24, which wasn’t much, even for that day, and the figure probably includes the salary and expenses of John Houseman and the others at Victorville. I think just the opposite—that his directing style is such an emanation of his adolescent love of theatre that his films lack a vital unifying element when he’s not in them or when he plays only a small part in them. Most big-studio movies were made in such a restrictive way that the crews were hostile and bored and the atmosphere was oppressive. The cutting (which a reading of the script reveals to have been carried out almost exactly as it was planned) is elegantly precise, and some sequences have a good, sophomoric musical-comedy buoyancy. The Citizen Kane book : Raising Kane. Mankiewicz’s character hadn’t changed. In this case, the primitive response is combined with the circumstances that Welles’ name had been heavily featured for years, that the role was a new creation, that the movie audience’s image of Welles was set by this overpowering role, in which they saw him for the first time, and that not only was the role partly based on him but he began to live up to it. Two years after the release of “Citizen Kane,” when Herman Mankiewicz had become respectable—his career had taken a leap after “Kane,” and he had had several major credits later in 1941 and had just won another Academy nomination, for his work on “The Pride of the Yankees”— he stumbled right into Hearst’s waiting arms. lawyers to demonstrate the width and depth of his culture. No one has ever been able to do what was expected of Welles—to create a new radical theatre and to make one movie masterpiece after another—but Welles’ “figurehead” publicity had snowballed to the point where all his actual and considerable achievements looked puny compared to what his destiny was supposed to be. One of his favorite tactics was to hire away men he didn’t actually want at double or treble what Pulitzer was paying them, then fire them, leaving them stranded (a tactic memorialized in “The Front Page” when Walter Burns hires and fires the poetic reporter Bensinger). With them, he was a prodigy of accomplishments; without them, he flew apart, became disorderly. Even many of the subsidiary characters are replicas of Hearst’s associates. It was an easier target for the public to respond to than Hearst’s own folly—motion pictures—because the public already connected opera with wealth and temperament, tycoons in opera hats and women in jewels, imported prima donnas, and all the affectations of “culture.” It was a world the movie public didn’t share, and it was already absurd in American movies—the way valets and effete English butlers and the high-toned Americans putting on airs who kept them were absurd. I think he not only provided the visual style of “Citizen Kane” but was responsible for affecting the conception, and even for introducing a few elements that are not in the script. I asked Nunnally Johnson if he thought Mankiewicz’s story was true, and Mankiewicz actually had got the offer and had taken Hecht’s advice. In the movie, it seems a structural gimmick—though a very cleverly used gimmick, which is enjoyable in itself. . What’s still surprising is how well a novice movie director handled so many of the standard thirties tricks and caricatures—the device of the alternative newspaper headlines, for example, and the stock explosive, hand-waving Italian opera coach (well played by Fortunio Bonanova). KANE: You’re right, Mr. Thatcher. Fragments of this are left, but their meaning is no longer clear. Emily was probably made the niece of the President in order to link Kane with the rich and to make a breach in the marriage when Kane was held responsible for the assassination of the President (as Hearst was accused of having incited the death of President McKinley). Instead, Welles’ heavily theatrical style overemphasized the psychological explanation to such a point that when we finally glimpse the name on the sled we in the audience are made to feel that we’re in on a big secret—a revelation that the world missed out on. He gave that weekly magazine of yours three years. It seems that as a child Herman Mankiewicz had had a sled, which may or may not have carried the label “Rosebud” (his family doesn’t remember); he wasn’t dramatically parted from the sled, but he once had a bicycle that was stolen, and he mourned that all his life. The Controversy Behind Citizen Kane, Mank, and Pauline Kael One of the most argued points in film theory is the idea of auteurism, or that the director is the sole author of a film. Mankiewicz said he was tempted by Welles’ offer. His behavior probably wasn’t deliberately self-destructive as much as it was a form of innocence inside the worldly, cynical man—I visualize him as so pleased with what he was doing that he wanted to share his delight with others. I don’t think I was wrong, exactly, but now the movie seems marvellous to me. Mankiewicz’s script, though nominally an “original”—and in the best sense original—was in large part an adaptation of the material (much of it published) of Hearst’s life. There was no special significance in the use of Mankiewicz’ s secretary’s last name for Susan Alexander, just as there was no significance in the fact that the actor Whitford Kane had been part of the nucleus of the Mercury Theatre, but the use of the name Bernstein for Kane’s devoted, uncritical friend had some significance in relation not only to Welles but to Hearst, and it was Mankiewicz’s way of giving Hearst points (he did it in the breakfast scene when Emily is snobbish about Bernstein) because, whatever else Hearst was, he was not a snob or an anti-Semite. It is no derogation to say that they were immediately impressive whereas “Rules of the Game” takes longer to appreciate because of the apparent artlessness of its ironies. The Citizen Cane Book By Pauline Kael, The Shooting Script By Herman J. Mankiewicz & Orson Welles. Orson drove out once for dinner. Kane seems an emanation of Welles, and if Mankiewicz didn’t take the ten thousand, he might just as well have, because he helped stamp Welles all over the film. We feel that he’s making it all happen. But to use “Thaïs” would have cost a fee, so Bernard Herrmann wrote choice excerpts of a fake French-Oriental opera—“Salammbô.” (Dorothy Comingore did her own singing in the movie except for the opera-house sequence; that was dubbed by a professional singer who deliberately sang badly.) He seemed like some prehistoric monster gliding among the couples, quietly majestic, towering over everyone; he had little, odd eyes, like a whale’s, and they looked pulled down, sinking into his cheeks. OCLC Number: 2889081: Notes: Originally published in 1971. Raising Kane was later refuted almost sentence by sentence in Robert Carringer's The Making of Citizen Kane, but at the time, a deeply injured Welles likened the job of cleaning up his Kael … (This is possible in theatre, but it’s rarely feasible.) The conception and the structure were his, all the dramatic Hearstian mythology and the journalistic and political wisdom which he had been carrying around with him for years which he now poured into the only serious job he ever did in a lifetime of film writing. ♦, (This is the second part of a two-part article.). In Mankiewicz’s original conception, the historical line of succession was laid out as in a chronicle play. He seems unsure of himself as the young Kane, and there’s something very engaging (and surprisingly human) about Welles unsure of himself; he’s a big, overgrown, heavy boy, and rather sheepish, one suspects, at being seen as he is. Directed by Orson Welles. I had never read Andrew Sarriss reply to Pauline Kaels infamous article Raising Kane, that was first published in The New Yorker in 1971.Raising Kane Pauline Kael on Amazon.com. Raising Kane and other Essays offers the best of Pauline Kael's more extended meditations on the movies, including the full text of her controversial account of the making of Citizen Kane, still considered by many to be the greatest motion picture ever made. The word had been used straight by Mrs. Fremont Older in 1936 when she published the authorized biography “William Randolph Hearst, American.” “American” was Hearst’s shibboleth; his Sunday magazine section was the American Weekly, and he had been changing his newspaper titles to include the word “American” whenever possible ever since Senator Henry Cabot Lodge accused him of being un-American in those days after the McKinley assassination when Hearst was hanged in effigy. He could claim that Susan wasn’t meant to be Marion Davies—that she was nothing at all like Marion, whom he called a darling and a minx. THOMPSON (smugly): He made a bit of a mistake. I wondered if there might be a link between Gregg Toland and the German tradition, though most of Toland’s other films didn’t suggest much German influence. Please see Wikipedia's template documentation for further citation fields that may be required. Her pictures had to be forced on exhibitors, and Hearst spent so much on them that even when they did well, the cost frequently couldn’t be recovered. Welles, too big for ordinary roles, too overpowering for normal characters, is stylized by nature—is by nature an Expressionist actor. This is not only a tribute to Welles as an actor but a backhanded tribute to Mankiewicz, who wrote the role for Welles the actor and wrote Welles the capricious, talented, domineering prodigy into the role, combining Welles’ personality and character traits with Hearst’s life in publishing and politics and acquisition.
pauline kael raising kane part 2 2021