The Citzen Kane Book

by Pauline Kael

  In later years, Welles, a brilliant talker, was to give many interviews, and as his power in the studios diminished, his role in past movies grew larger. Sometimes it seems that his only power is over the interviewers who believe him. He is a masterful subject. The new generation of film historians have their own version of “Look, no hands”: they tape-record interviews. Young interviewers, particularly, don’t bother to check the statements of their subjects—they seem to regard that as outside their province—and thus leave the impression that the self-aggrandizing stories they record are history. And so, as the years go on, if one trusts what appears in print, Welles wrote not only Kane but just about everything halfway good in any picture he ever acted in, and in interviews he’s beginning to have directed anything good in them, too. Directors are now the most interviewed group of people since the stars in the forties, and they have told the same stories so many times that not only they believe them, whether they’re true or false, but everybody is beginning to.

  This worship of the director is cyclical—Welles or Fellini is probably adored no more than von Stroheim or von Sternberg or De Mille was in his heyday—but such worship generally doesn’t help in sorting out what went into the making of good pictures and bad pictures. The directors try to please the interviewers by telling them the anecdotes that have got a good response before. The anecdotes are sometimes charming and superficial, like the famous one—now taken for motion-picture history—about how Howard Hawks supposedly discovered that The Front Page would be better if a girl played the reporter Hildy, and thus transformed the play into His Girl Friday in 1940. (“I was going to prove to somebody that The Front Page had the finest modern dialogue that had been written, and I asked a girl to read Hildy’s part and I read the editor, and I stopped and I said, ‘Hell, it’s better between a girl and a man than between two men.’”) Now, a charming story is not nothing. Still, this is nothing but a charming and superficial story. His Girl Friday turned out joyously, but if such an accident did cause Hawks to see how easy it was to alter the play, he still must have done it rather cynically, in order to make it conform to the box-office patterns then current. By the mid-thirties—after the surprise success of It Happened One Night—the new independent, wisecracking girl was very popular, especially in a whole cycle of newspaper pictures with rival girl and boy reporters. Newspaper pictures were now “romantic comedies,” and, just as the movies about lady fliers were almost all based on Amelia Earhart, the criminal-mouthpiece movies on William Fallon, and the gossip-column movies on Walter Winchell, the movies about girl reporters were almost all based on the most highly publicized girl reporter—Hearst’s Adela Rogers St. Johns. Everybody had already been stealing from and unofficially adapting The Front Page in the “wacky” romantic newspaper comedies, and one of these rewrites, Wedding Present, in 1936 (by Adela Rogers St. Johns’s then son-in-law Paul Gallico), had tough editor (Cary Grant) and smart girl reporter (Joan Bennet) with square fiancé (Conrad Nagel). This was the mold that The Front Page was then squeezed into to become His Girl Friday, with Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, and Ralph Bellamy (already a favorite square from The Awful Truth) in the same roles, and Rosalind Russell was so obviously playing Adela Rogers St. Johns that she was dressed in an imitation of the St. Johns girl-reporter striped suit.

  Some things that students now, seeing films out of the context of the cycles they were part of, may take to be brilliant inventions were fairly standard; in fact, the public at the time was so familiar with the conventions of the popular comedies that the clichés were frequently spoofed within the pictures. But today, because of the problems peculiar to writing the history of modern mass-art forms, and because of the jumbled circumstances in which movies survive, with knowledge of them acquired in haphazard fashion from television, and from screenings here and there, film enthusiasts find it simpler to explain movies in terms of the genius-artist-director, the schoolbook hero—the man who did it all. Those who admire Citizen Kane, which is constructed to present different perspectives on a man’s life, seem naïvely willing to accept Welles’s view of its making; namely, that it was his sole creation.

  Howard Hawks must wonder what the admiration of the young is worth when he learns from them that he invented overlapping dialogue in His Girl Friday, since it means that they have never bothered to look at the text of the original Hecht and MacArthur play. Welles, too, has been said to have invented overlapping dialogue, and just about everything else in Kane. But unearned praise is insulting, and a burden; Welles sometimes says, “I drag my myth around with me.” His true achievements are heavy enough to weigh him down. Welles is a great figure in motion-picture history: he directed what is almost universally acclaimed as the greatest American film of the sound era; he might have become the greatest all-around American director of that era; and in his inability to realize all his artistic potentialities he is the greatest symbolic figure in American film history since Griffith.

  Eighteen

  IN THE PAST FEW years, I have heard two famous “artist” directors, after showings of their early films, explain how it happened that in the screen credits there was someone else listed for the script. It seems there was this poor guy on the lot who needed a credit desperately, and the company asked the director if he’d give the stumblebum a break; the incompetent turned in some material, but the director couldn’t use any of it. Some listeners must swallow this, because in the latest incense-burning book on Josef von Sternberg the screen credits are simply ignored, and he, rather than Ben Hecht, is listed as the author of Underworld. Herman J. Mankiewicz has been similarly dropped from one film after another. The directors’ generosity to those poor credit-hungry guys seems to have cutoff points in time (the directors’ creative roles get bigger when the writers are dead) and in space (when the directors are interviewed abroad). Orson Welles, however, didn’t need time or distance; he omitted any mention of his writer right from the start. (This custom is now being followed by many directors.) In later years, when he has been specifically asked by interviewers whether Mankiewicz wrote the scenario for Citizen Kane, he has had a set reply. “Everything concerning Rosebud belongs to him,” he has said. Rosebud is what was most frequently criticized in the movie, and Gilbert Seldes, in one of the most solid and intelligent reviews of Kane (in Esquire), called it “a phony” and “the only bit of stale stuff in the picture.” Welles himself has said, “The Rosebud gimmick is what I like least about the movie. 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. Welles, who used to tell stories about how when he was seventeen he became a torero in Seville and entered several corridas and was billed on the posters as “The American,” may have got a few welts, starting with Mankiewicz’s original title—American. When Welles read the script, he must certainly have recognized what he was caught in. There’s no doubt that Welles—the fabulous Orson Welles—wasn’t accustomed to sharing credit. However, his persistent lack of generosity toward Mankiewicz started at the time the movie came out, and it may have its basis in a very specific grievance. Mankiewicz may have outsmarted Welles on the credits more than once. Nunnally Johnson says that while Citizen Kane was being shot, Mankiewicz told him that he had received an offer of a ten-thousand-dollar bonus from Welles (through Welles’s “chums”) to hold to the original understanding and keep his name off the picture. Mankiewicz said that Welles had been brooding over the credits, that he could see how beautiful they would be: “Produced by Orson Welles. Directed by Orson Welles. Starring Orson Welles.” It was perfect until he got to “Herman J. Mankiewicz” in the writing credit, which spoiled everything. Mankiewicz said he was tempted by Welles’s offer. As usual, he needed money, and, besides, he was fearful of what would happen when the picture came out—he might be blackballed forever. William Randolph Hearst, like Stalin, was known to be fairly Byzantine in his punishments. At the
same time, Mankiewicz knew that Citizen Kane was his best work, and he was proud of it. He told Johnson that he went to Ben Hecht with his dilemma, and that Hecht, as prompt with advice as with scripts, said, “Take the ten grand and double-cross the son of a bitch.”

  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. Johnson replied, “I like to believe he did.” It’s not unlikely. 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. Mankiewicz may easily have felt he deserved an extra ten thousand. “An Irish bum,” Johnson calls him—and if that makes him sound lovable, the operative word is still “bum.” If Mankiewicz made up the story he told Johnson—and he was probably capable of such juicy slander—this kind of invention may be a clue to why Welles tries to turn the credit into blame. And if Mankiewicz did get the offer, did take the money, and did double-cross Welles, this might equally well explain why Welles doesn’t want Mankiewicz to get any honor.

  But Welles needed Mankiewicz. 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. Welles has never been able to write this kind of vehicle for himself. Kane may be a study of egotism and a movie about money and love, but it isn’t just another movie about a rich man who isn’t loved; it’s a scandalously unauthorized, muckraking biography of a man who was still alive and—though past his peak influence—still powerful, so it conveyed shock and danger, and it drew its strength from its reverberations in the life of the period. Mankiewicz brought to the film the force of journalism. The thirties had been full of movie biographies of tycoons and robber barons, and some, like The Power and the Glory, were complexly told, but even Preston Sturges, as if in awe of the material, had taken a solemn, almost lachrymose approach to the money-doesn’t-bring-happiness them. Mankiewicz did it better: the prismatic technique turned into a masterly juggling act. There’s an almost palpable sense of enjoyment in the script itself; Mankiewicz was skillful at making his points through comedy, and frequently it’s higher, blacker comedy than was customary in the thirties pictures. Welles is a different kind of writer—theatrical and Gothic, not journalistic, and not organized. His later thrillers are portentous, sensational in a void, entertaining thrillers, often, but merethrillers.

  Lacking the realistic base and the beautifully engineered structure that Mankiewicz provided, Welles has never again been able to release that charming, wicked rapport with the audience that he brought to Kane both as actor and as director (or has been able to release it only in distorted form, in self-satire and self-humiliation). He has brought many qualities to film—and there was perhaps a new, mellowed vitality in his work in the flawedFalstaff of a few years ago—but he has brought no more great original characters. In his movies, he can create an atmosphere but not a base. And without that the spirit that makes Kane so likable a bastard is missing. Kane, that mass of living contradictions, was conceived by Mankiewicz, an atheist who was proud of his kosher home, a man who was ambivalent about both Hearst and Welles.

  However, things that get printed often enough begin to seep into the general consciousness of the past, so there is a widespread impression that Welles wrote Citizen Kane. And even if one hadn’t heard that he wrote it, and despite the presence in the film of so many elements and interests that are unrelated to Welles’s other work (mundane activities and social content are not his forte), Kane and Welles are identified in our minds. 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’s personality and character traits with Hearst’s life in publishing and politics and acquisition.

  If one asks how it is that Herman J. Mankiewicz, who wrote the film that many people think is the greatest film they’ve ever seen, is almost unknown, the answer must surely be not just that he died too soon but that he outsmarted himself. As a result of his wicked sense of humor in drawing upon Welles’s character for Kane’s, his own authorship was obscured. Sensing the unity of Kane and Welles, audiences assume that Kane is Welles’s creation, that Welles is playing “the role he was born to play,” while film scholars, seeing the material from Welles’s life in the movie, interpret the film as Welles working out autobiographical themes. It is a commonplace in theatre talk to say that Olivier is Archie Rice or Olivier is Macbeth without assuming that the actor has conceived the role, but in movies we don’t see other actors in the same role (except in remakes, which are usually very different in style), and film is so vivid and the actor so large and so close that it is a common primitive response to assume that the actor invented his lines. In this case, the primitive response is combined with the circumstances that Welles’s 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. Herman Mankiewicz died, and his share faded from knowledge, but Welles carries on in a baronial style that always reminds us of Kane. 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.

  Nineteen

  JAMES AGEE, who didn’t being reviewing until later in 1941, wrote several years afterward that Welles had been “fatuously overrated as a ‘genius,’” and that he himself, annoyed by all the talk, had for a while underrated him. 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. 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.

  One of the games that film students sometimes play is to judge a director on whether you have the illusion that the people on the screen will go on doing what they’re doing after the camera leaves them. Directors are rated by how much time you think elapsed before the actors grabbed their coats or ordered a sandwich. The longer the time, the more of a film man the director is said to be; when a director is stage-oriented, you can practically see the actors walking off the set. This game doesn’t help in judging a film’s content, but it’s a fairly reliable test of a director’s film technique; one could call it a test of movie believability. However, it isn’t applicable to Citizen Kane. You’re perfectly well aware that the people won’t go on doing what they’re doing—that they have, indeed, completed their actions on the screen. 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. This bravura is, I think, the picture’s only true originality, and it wasn’t an intentional challenge to the concept of unobtrusive technique but was (mainly) the result of Welles’s discovery of—and his delight in—the fun of making movies.

  The best American directors in the thirties had been developing an unpretentious American naturalism; modern subjects and the advent of sound had freed them from the heavy dead hand of Germanic stage lighting and design. And so Ferguson was dismayed to see this all come back, and it wasdepressing that the critics who had always fallen for the synthetic serious were bowing and scraping and calling the picture “deep” and “realistic.” Probably so many people called it realistic because the social satire mad
e contact with what they felt about Hearst and the country; when they used the term, they were referring to the content rather than the style. But it was the “retrogressive” style that upset Ferguson—because it was when Orson Welles, an “artist” director, joined the toughness and cynicism and the verbal skills of the thirties to that incomparable, faintly absurd, wonderfully overblown style of his that people said “art.” Where Ferguson went wrong was in not recognizing one crucial element: that the unconcealed—even flaunted—pleasure that Welles took in all that claptrap made it new.

  And it has kept it new. Even a number of those who worked on Kane, such as Houseman and Dorothy Comingore, have observed that the film seems to improve with the years. At the time, I got more simple, frivolous pleasure from Preston Sturges’s The Lady Eve, which had come out a few months earlier, and I found more excitement in John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon, which came out a few months later. At the time (I was twenty-one), I enjoyed Kane for the performances and the wit, but I was very conscious of how shallow the iconoclasm was. I don’t think I was wrong, exactly, but now the movie seems marvellous to me. It’s an exuberant shallow iconoclasm, and that youthful zest for shock and for the Expressionist theatricality seems to transform the shallowness. Now the movie sums up and preserves a period, and the youthful iconoclasm is preserved in all its freshness—even the freshness of its callowness. Now that the political theme (in its specific form, that is) is part of the past, the naïveté and obviousness fade, and what remains is a great American archetype and a popular legend—and so it has a strength that makes the artificially created comic world of a movie like The Lady Eve disappear by comparison. Citizen Kane has such energy it drives the viewer along. Though Mankiewicz provided the basic apparatus for it, that magical exuberance which fused the whole scandalous enterprise was Welles’s. Works of art are enjoyed for different reasons in different periods; it may even be one of the defining characteristics of a lasting work of art that it yields up different qualities for admiration at different times. Welles’s “magic,” his extraordinary pleasure in playacting and illusion and in impressing an audience—what seems so charming about the movie now—was what seemed silly to me then. It was bouncy Pop Gothic in a period when the term “comic strip” applied to works of art was still a term of abuse. Now Welles’s discovery of movie-making—and the boyishness and excitement of that discovery—is preserved in Kane the way the snow scene is preserved in the glass ball.