Fifty years ago this year, Orson Welles had made what wouldeventually become known as the greatest movie of all time. But hewas having trouble getting it released.
"Citizen Kane" told the story of an aging press tycoon whosearrogance had alienated him from everyone who loved him, and who haddied alone inside the vast gothic pile of his lonely castle inFlorida. To many observers, Charles Foster Kane bore an uncannyresemblance to William Randolph Hearst, the aging press tycoon wholived in San Simeon, his famous California castle. And to Hearst'sunderlings, "Citizen Kane" was so unflattering to their boss thatthey banned all mention of it from the Hearst papers, radio stationsand wire services. For good measure, they also banned all mention ofevery other movie from the same studio, RKO Radio Pictures.
During one extraordinary moment in the negotiations leading upto the release of "Citizen Kane," the very existence of the filmitself was in doubt. Terrified by the possibility of anantiHollywood campaign by the Hearst press, a group of industryleaders, led by MGM's Louis B. Mayer, offered RKO a cash settlementto simply destroy the film. It would have covered RKO's costs andadded a small profit. But by then Welles had already sneakpreviewedthe movie to so many powerful opinion-makers that it was too late tosweep it under the rug.
"Citizen Kane" never did get a proper national release, however.It could not play in major theaters in many cities, because they wereblock-booked by the big studios, which boycotted the film. It couldnot be advertised in the influential Hearst papers (the ads referredonly to a mysterious "New Screen Attraction"). And although the filmwas instantly hailed by many critics, John O'Hara in Newsweek andBosley Crowther in the New York Times among them, it won only oneAcademy Award - which Welles shared with Herman J. Mankiewicz, forthe screenplay.
The legends of "Citizen Kane" and Orson Welles were, in the nexthalf-century, to become one of the central myths of Hollywood: how aboy genius in his mid-20s was given a completely free rein to makeexactly the movie he wanted to make, and how in response he made thegreatest movie of all time, only to see both the film and his owncareer chewed up and spat out by the venal, small-minded Hollywoodestablishment. Welles became the great outsider hero of cinema,central to the French auteur critics, championed by independentfilmmakers, cited by anyone who wants to make an argument for filmart over film commerce.
And now it is 1991 and Welles is dead and so are many of theother bright-eyed young people in his Mercury Theater troupe who wentWest to make a movie. But the legend of "Citizen Kane" lives on. Itis routinely voted the greatest film of all time, most notably inthe international polls by the British film magazine Sight & Sound in1962, 1972 and 1982. And this spring a bright, sparkling newrestored print of "Citizen Kane" will play in 50th anniversaryengagements all over the country.
There is a certain irony in the national release of thisrevival, since "Citizen Kane" is now owned by Ted Turner, aninternational media baron with certain similarities to both Hearstand Kane. All three men came from humble origins, got their firstbroken-down media property cheap, had a vision of a new mass audienceand became famous millionaires who settled down with actresses.
Turner says he has the time to watch only three or four movies ayear, but I'll bet "Citizen Kane" is among them. And perhaps henotices parallels with his own career: how his undoubted achievementsand great successes are sometimes undermined by a failure of taste.Kane's great downfall came because he fell in love with a humbleshopgirl and became determined to turn her into a great opera singer,despite her lack of talent. The Achilles' heel in Turner's careercame when he fell in love with a sleazy technical innovation namedcolorization, and became determined to turn black and white moviesinto ersatz color movies, despite the outraged protests of filmlovers everywhere. Yes, the Ted Turner who has made the beautiful,lovingly restored new print of "Citizen Kane" is the very same manwho also wanted to colorize Welles' masterpiece.
"Make me one promise," Welles told his friend Henry Jaglom a fewweeks before his death. "Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolasaway from my movie." In the event, it was a document 50 years oldthat kept Turner's crayons away from "Kane." Welles' originalcontract with RKO, hailed at the time as the most extraordinarycontract any studio had ever given a filmmaker, guaranteed Welles'absolute control over every aspect of the production - including itscolor, or lack of same.
And so the new print now going into release around the countrywill look substantially the same as when the movie had its premierein 1941. For many filmgoers, that will be a revelation. More thanmost films, "Citizen Kane" must be seen in a 35mm theatrical print tobe appreciated.
I've seen "Kane" at least 50 times on 16mm, videotape andlaserdisc. I have gone through it a scene at a time, using astop-frame film analyzer, at least 25 times in various film classesand at festivals. Yet I've seen it in 35mm only twice: in 1956, whenit had its first major re-release and I was in grade school, and in1978, when a new print was shown at the Chicago Film Festival.
From my 1956 viewing, I remember only the overwhelming totalimpression of the film, which in its visual sweep and the sheeraudacity of its imagination outclassed all the small-mindedentertainments I was used to seeing at the movies. From the 1978viewing, I remember how the brightness and detail of the 35mm printopened up the corners and revealed the shadows of the great film.
"Citizen Kane" makes great use of darkness and shadow. Welles,working with the gifted cinematographer Gregg Toland, wanted to showa man's life that was filled to bursting with possessions, power,associates, wealth and mystery. He created a gloomy, dark visualstyle for the picture, which in 35mm reveals every nook and cranny tocontain a treasure or a hint. And because of Toland's famousdeep-focus photography, the frame is filled from front to back aswell as from left to right.
The first apartment of Kane's mistress, for example, containsthe paperweight he drops much later when he dies. It's on a tablewith other odds and ends. The famous warehouse shot at the end ofthe film includes a portrait of young Charlie Kane with his parents.You can see those details easily in 35mm, but not so easily in the16mm prints of the movie, or even in the superb laserdisc issued bythe Criterion Collection. If you've only seen the movie on broadcasttelevision or in a beaten-up 16mm classroom print, you may be amazedat the additional details visible in 35mm.
The story of the making of "Citizen Kane" is by now one of thecentral legends of movie lore. Many books have been written aboutthe film, most notably The "Citizen Kane" Book by Pauline Kael, withher famous essay "Raising Kane," which argues that the contributionof writer Herman J. Mankiewicz to the production has beenunderappreciated. Robert Carringer, a Welles expert at theUniversity of Illinois, has published The Making of "Citizen Kane,"with much analysis of visual strategies and production details. AndHarlan Lebo's new "Citizen Kane": The 50th Anniversary Album includesmany inside details from interviews with the participants. (Example:Welles gashed his left hand in the scene where he tears apart Susan'sapartment, and pulls it out of camera view in the closeup where hepicks up the paperweight.)
Two weeks ago at the University of Colorado, I went through"Citizen Kane" once again, with a 16mm film analyzer, joined byseveral hundred students, faculty and townspeople. We sat in thedark, and audience members called out "stop!" when there wassomething they wanted to discuss. Scene by scene and sometimes shotby shot, we looked at the performances, the photography, the specialeffects.
In preparing for this 50th anniversary salute to "Kane," Ire-read all of the books. There is much disagreement about many ofthe facts. You can read that Hearst personally saw "Citizen Kane,"or that he did not. That Hearst, if he did see the film, wasoffended by it, or actually rather enjoyed it. That Welles tookcredit for the work of his associates, or that he inspired them tosurpass all their earlier achievements.
Reading the many accounts of "Citizen Kane" is a little likeseeing the movie: The witnesses all have opinions, but often theydisagree, and sometimes they simply throw up their hands inexasperation. And the movie stands there before them, a toweringachievement that cannot be explained yet cannot be ignored. Fiftyyears later, it is as fresh, as provoking, as entertaining, as funny,as sad, as brilliant as it ever was. Many agree it is the greatestfilm of all time. Those who differ cannot seem to agree on theircandidate.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий