|
|
Post by mattgarth on May 18, 2020 7:10:52 GMT
The unflattering depiction of Kane is obviously based on powerful newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst -- who was not known for possessing a sense of humor.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on May 18, 2020 13:42:25 GMT
Most movie directors of the time has no control over the films they made. They were considered to be technicians, more or less. But RKO gave this kid (Welles was 26) with no movie experience complete control over his own movie. Besides, as mattgarth has already said, his film angered a very powerful media figure. The Hollywood establishment mainly shunned him, shut him out, along with his movie. “Kane” was nominated for 9 Oscars but the only win went to long time toiler in the movie pits and friend to many, Herman J. Mankiewicz, for screenplay. (But it didn’t stop directors and cinematographers from starting to use many of the storytelling techniques pioneered in “Citizen Kane.”) |
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on May 18, 2020 14:57:42 GMT
Most movie directors of the time has no control over the films they made. They were considered to be technicians, more or less. But RKO gave this kid (Welles was 26) with no movie experience complete control over his own movie. Besides, as mattgarth has already said, his film angered a very powerful media figure. The Hollywood establishment mainly shunned him, shut him out, along with his movie. “Kane” was nominated for 9 Oscars but the only win went to long time toiler in the movie pits and friend to many, Herman J. Mankiewicz, for screenplay. (But it didn’t stop directors and cinematographers from starting to use many of the storytelling techniques pioneered in “Citizen Kane.”)
Great comments, mike. And for the record, Orson shared the Oscar for writing with Mankiewicz, though it's a unclear how much he actually contributed to it; some in the end perhaps, but I think most of it came from Mankiewicz, who originated the idea and with the help and collaboration of John Houseman was able to write it. Holed up in a cabin in California's San Joaquin valley, with Mankiewicz suffering from a broken leg, they crafted the entire first draft, realizing as they went along the parallels between the lives of Hearst and the young Orson Welles. Here's a passage from John's memoir about part of the writing experience (there's so much more, but it's too hard to copy it all here):
"Our days and nights on the Campbell Ranch followed a reassuring routine. Mankiewicz wrote and read half the night and slept in the morning. I got up early, had my breakfast in the main house so as not to disturb him and went riding for an hour. . .After that, while I waited for him to come to life, I would edit the pages Mank had written the night before, which the secretary had typed at dawn. At nine-thirty Mank received his breakfast in bed. An hour later, after having made an enormous production of shaving, washing, and dressing himself on one leg he was ready for work. This consisted of going over yesterday's material, arguing over changes and seeing how the new scenes fitted into the structure of the whole and affected the scenes to come."
"The script grew harder to write as we went along." (He talks then about shifting from a linear to non-linear structure.) "Finally, after ten weeks, we were done."
- "John Houseman, Run-Through 1902-1941"
And this link explains a lot more in general, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on May 18, 2020 15:14:48 GMT
While Orson shared the screenwriting Oscar with Mank (perhaps unfairly), he richly deserved the prize for acting and directing.
But he hardly endeared himself to the film community by predicting that his initial stab at movie-making would result in the greatest picture ever made -- and then, by golly, went and did it.
Of course, he did learn from the master (without the master even knowing it) -- Welles spent a lot of preparation time screening John Ford's STAGECOACH to get a handle on cinematography and editing.
|
|
