User reviews

This is a feature-length documentary found on the DVD of Citizen Kane(not to be confused with the actual TV picture of a few years later, RKO 281, in spite of the latter sharing the title and evidently at least some of the premise). It's well-produced throughout and leaves little to be desired. It is more about the life and accomplishments of Hearst than Welles, but that can be argued as fitting, as that was whom the film in question was intended to be a biography of(if it turned out to be a bit of a misunderstood attempt at so, masterful effort though it is, and in the end actually is closer to the real persona, past and then-future of its maker). We are given a lot of insight into both of them, who they were, what drove them, their triumphs and defeat. It's all told rather well, with clips of the movie itself(as well as others, where it fits), interviews, past as well as current, with those who worked with them(and even one of Orson himself, from '82), footage from behind the scenes, stills and narration. A number of the many shocks the two caused, including the (in)famous War of the Worlds broadcast, are detailed, with witness accounts where possible. It's well-written and put together with expertise. This alone ought to be a strong point in favor of owning a copy of the piece itself. I recommend this to anyone who wants to know about one and/or the other of the mighty people, the controversy and their clash. 8/10

More than simply an account of the making of America's (arguably) greatest film, THE BATTLE OVER CITIZEN KANE studies the oddly parallel personalities behind the movie, as well as the politics of Hollywood circa 1940. Originally broadcast on PBS' AMERICAN EXPERIENCE series (one of the better things on American TV), it may pale in comparison to other arts documentaries but gives worthwhile insight to two of America's most complex and protean figures.

Documentary about the battle between Orson Welles and William Randolph Hearst over Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941). Features interviews with Welles' and Hearst's co-workers also as a relatively complete bio of Hearst.

This documentary covers two things. One is the creation of "Citizen Kane" and the troubles that Orson Welles went through to get people to see it. This is covered fairly well, and for a fictional version of the story people can watch "RKO 281" which is based on this documentary.

The other part is just as interesting, and maybe even more so: the biography of William Randolph Heart. While a towering figure in his day and at the time "Citizen Kane" came out, he has left the public consciousness. Do half of the people in America even know who he is? Probably not. And yet he had a profound effect on journalism and culture. He should be celebrated.

Here is a special kind of documentary. It's surprising that it got nominated for an Oscar for best documentary, as it is from what I've seen in the DVD as being a made-for-TV affair (provided by annual financial support from "Viewers like you"). But on those standards it's one of the best from the 90's. Here is a study, not too long and not too short, about not only the history behind the feud that ensued between William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles, but really about the two men themselves and how the best thing to come out of it all was the film. As it stands with history in present times, the real facts are interesting enough, yet is more for a selective audience who'll take the time to read books on the subject(s) or watch the documentaries. And if a fictional narrative on celluloid comes out, that may (or may not) become a basis for how that history is seen in the following generations who've never heard of the real stories. Citizen Kane is not a down-to-the-line biographical take on Hearst's jump to fame and his descent into his 'kingdom' of sorts, and it shouldn't have been (although, and this documentary confirms it, certain explicit details were taken from Hearst's life, which even Welles in interviews considers "dirty tricks").

So like all good PBS-style documentaries, the filmmakers aren't content with merely showing the making of Kane and the battle over it (there's the dramatization- RKO 281- for that). It goes into the details of the two subjects lives, and an almost compare/contrast format of their claims to fame and power, however gargantuan &/or precious it was. Hearst grew up in what one of the interviewees calls a "19th century mind-set", where what he had was all his, no matter how he got it. It's of true fascination for someone from the end of the 20th century into the 21st century to see the brilliance behind the hubris; Hearst did in fact create the first sort of magazine that today is considered like an Enquirer or a Star magazine, only juicier and fresher to a sensitized audience. He creates an empire, tries to run for Government and fails, and then focuses all of his attentions on Marion Davies, a comic actress whom he nearly moved buildings for.

His story is inter-cut wonderfully with Orson Welles's rise to fame. Anyone who knows just a little about Welles knows the hallmark War of the Worlds broadcast which, coincidentally like Hearst, capitalized on the public's pre-World War judgments. But un-like Hearst, who was painted as courteous, but also domineering and God-like (and Welles could be both of those things), Welles's control could get fierce, and difficult, but always for the results on stage or on the radio. Welles came almost 'out of nowhere', and says himself that he rarely heard a discouraging word. That is, until he reached New York, where he became one of the first celebrities to get a hotbed of controversy laid on his daring in entertainment and off. He revolutionized the theater (Macbeth and King Lear are mentioned, but wisely also the reverse power of the flops for Welles), and then radio, and got the most delicious film contract since Charlie Chaplin. When he hooked up with writer and Hearst's San Simian frequenter Herman Manciewicz, the ball got rolling on his first Hollywood picture.

For some, this is where the real interest may kick in (likely more for film buffs than regular history aficionados), as Hearst threatened everything but a gun to the studio's executives to squash the film that alluded to so much about his personal life (one doesn't even need to mention 'Rosebud'). Although this part of the film seems to go by a little faster than the bulk of the film, it's of not flaw. Because of the time spent analyzing these two unique mavericks in their fields, one can see almost why this had to happen. It was just as personal and important for Hearst to create his empire as it was for Welles to make his film. There were, of course, many things that were Welles, not Hearst, in the picture, and that adds to its appeal. The film is also excellent as it doesn't shy from pointing out as much as what went wrong as went right; Welles's career would never be the same after that film, and Hearst was already on his way down after the battle was over (one person remarked to Welles after the movie opened up "quit now, quite while you're ahead). It should prove a great viewing for 'Kane' and Welles fans, and those who have not much an interest in him may still have that PBS doc bug going for the Hearst parts of the story.

In the middle of the landmark masterpiece film "Citizen Kane", Leland (Joseph Cotton) criticizes Kane (Orson Welles) about his out-dated political views after Kane has lost an election. Leland states that Kane views himself as a kind of benevolent monarch that has the power to bestow rights on the "working man". Leland furthers his argument to say that Kane ultimately thinks he owns "the people". Leland concludes that "the people" will demand their rights removed from any "gifts" of moneyed magnates. The essence of this scene in "Kane" is what "The Battle for Citizen Kane" is all about. Here, possibly for the first time, politics is critiqued by "entertainment". Welles dared to portray in an unfavorable light one of the most powerful men in the US at that time: William Randolf Hearst.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction. The truth of Citizen Kane, as hypothesized by "The Battle for Citizen Kane" is that Charles Foster Kane, the "protagonist" of Welles' movie, was not purely William Randolf Hearst. He had a little of Orson Welles in him. Whether intentional or purely coincidental, the character portrayed by Welles was much more rooted in Welles own biography than most people realize, and the end of his life was strangely predicted by the movie. This film is about the two men that gave birth to the film character "Charles Foster Kane". It is also one of the best commentaries on the movie industry of the early 20th century.

The movie "Citizen Kane" was not only one of the earliest examples where the entertainment industry made a caustic criticism of politics. It also makes commentary on the entertainment industry itself. Often the general public sees the entertainment industry as just that: an industry presenting escapist material for consumption during leisure hours. What the public doesn't see is how intertwined the entertainment industry is with politics, and how the industry often resists making critiques of politicians when it might jeopardize its own self-interests. This documentary centers around how a movie made in 1940 challenged a living political tycoon. "Citizen Kane" was and still is one of only a handful of narrative feature films that dared to portray a living political force. A couple of others that come to mind are "All the President's Men" (made after Nixon and his top advisers had lost their power) and recently "The Queen", concerning Queen Elizabeth II, still the current monarch of England.

Hearst was a 19th-century newspaper magnate who resisted the progressive values of the early 20th century that began to object to the monopolized power of corporate magnates. Hearst began using his newspaper for political means and began blurring entertainment and news almost a century before Fox News appeared on cable television.

Thousands of people made Hearst newspapers function, and millions of readers depended upon Hearst and his publications for honest reporting, and Hearst depended upon those readers to maintain his business. However, Hearst categorically discredited these kinds of realities. The newspapers were ultimately his and his alone, a very 19th-century view of business. And he could use and abuse his newspaper to propagate any agenda he wished. For Hearst, the fact that the public paid for his newspapers, and therefore paid for his livelihood, was irrelevant. For a young filmmaker just given "carte Blanche" in Hollywood, Hearst was the perfect subject-matter for a film project that would depict the American dream gone corrupt. Orson Welles was possibly the first director that had the backing of a major Hollywood studio to not only portray but critique the motives and integrity of a living political magnate through the means of cinema.

As great a filmmaker as Welles turned out to be, he was too young and inexperienced to understand the power of political and moneyed magnates. Welles was not just playing with dynamite-- he was playing with nuclear weapons. Welles was certainly naive if he thought Hearst was going to take such abuse without fighting back. Hearst did not just fight back, he declared war. The documentary chronicles that war, from the copy of the script that is secretly obtained by a Hearst insider to Hearst's threats to boycott the studios' movie ads. The documentary has it all. It includes superb biographies of both men chronicling the time before their lives dramatically and traumatically intersected. One other unique aspect of the documentary is its use of the film "Citizen Kane" to show aspects of the character Kane that belonged to Hearst and alternate aspects that belonged to Welles.

It appears fitting that the only two figures that could match a fictional character like Charles Foster Kane would be William Randolf Hearst and Orson Welles. Ironically, Welles and Hearst created Kane, and Kane changed Welles and Hearst forever after like no other single character in cinematic history. Kane became the Frankenstein's monster that ended up outdoing its creators. Cinema buffs will largely see Hearst as Kane portrayed by Welles--from the young newspaper owner/editor trying to establish a reputation for quality journalism to the corrupt media magnate using his newspapers to push his second wife into entertainment stardom. And Welles would never live down Kane as his first, best and greatest achievement in the entertainment industry. Some in the industry joked that Welles was the biggest has-been in Hollywood at the ripe-old-age of 26 after the completion of "Kane". Welles would certainly make contributions to the field after Kane, but he would never top it, as predicted by a veteran Hollywood journalist at the time. The "Battle for Citizen Kane" portrays one of the strangest triangle of characters ever assembled. And as the film points out, the movie "Citizen Kane" is the one "character" that appears to have had and continues to have a happy ending.

"The Battle Over Citizen Kane" is an informative companion piece to the Welles classic film. For those under-familiar or unfamiliar with the subject, this documentary offers an enlightening introduction. To those already knowledgeable in this subject, "Battle" may be of less interest.

There are sharp parallels made between Welles and Hearst, and there is fine archival footage of the two early careers. Both were giants in their respective areas, with notable crossovers between journalism and theater, thanks to stylistic flamboyancies of each.

This documentary depicts the influence of power and wealth upon the human personality, and how it can become an obsession for greater acquisition--be it in the form of physical object or artistic success.

Both personalities seemed to enjoy courageous controversy and daring defiance--even thriving on it. Both lives were played out like nineteenth century Romantics, vacillating between poles of extreme and excess.

Yet, in the end, it is Welles who emerges the victor. His legacy is forever enshrined in the halls of greatness, long after Heart's name has become faint or forgotten. In his '82 BBC interview, Welles appeared sympathetic to a suggestion made to him in '38 that he should retire from filmmaking.

I personally don't buy that idea. Regardless of the obvious career "decline" after "Kane," Welles crafted many wonderful, memorable performances as actor, and unique, unforgettable films as director. He was and remains a force to be reckoned with, in the media of radio, stage, and motion pictures.

Nor do I fully appreciate such labels as "greatest of all time" slapped upon "Kane." Such titles inadvertently tend to invite comparative--even reactionary--responses, rather than allowing the viewer to freely discover and uncover remarkable layers of quality in the work.

I'm sure they'll eventually be better documentaries on this subject; for now, though, "The Battle Over Citizen Kane" fulfills its objective competently.

This episode of "The American Experience" was included as a DVD extra for the film "Citizen Kane". It's an exceptional film that is not just about the making of "Citizen Kane" but is also a film about two men--William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles. Welles made the film and it was a veiled life story of Hearst--though with many fictional elements. This installment of the exceptional PBS series digs deeper--looking for parallels in both their lives--such as their huge egos as well as the way Welles' life mirrored that of Charles Foster Kane in many ways. Using various interviews, photos and film footage, they assembled a very compelling and interesting documentary--particularly for those who love old films. I could easily say more about the film and all that I learned about the personal lives, the production and Hearst's campaign to stop the film--but I'll leave all this to you to learn when you see it.

This is almost very good? The controversial story of Orson Welles vs William Randolph Hearst over Welles' Citizen Kane is an interesting one that I thought I was familiar with, but apparently not, because there was a decent amount I learnt from this.

Still, it's unfortunately dry in places, and a little repetitive too. Structure is a tiny bit weird, as they spend a lot of time on Hearst before switching to Welles and spending a lot of time on him, repeating this cycle for a while until their stories collide in the last half-hour. It didn't feel entirely coherent or satisfying.

But there's some good interviews and a good deal of solid information that isn't quite presented in the most exciting or coherent fashion.

If made today it would definitely be more critical of some of Welles' and Hearst's behaviour, but I won't hold that against it too much. It's a tiny bit too respectful to its subjects, who both did some pretty terrible things, some of which are even covered in the documentary...

There have been said so many things about Citizen Kane and how it was made .. but this is not just about that. It is about the two figures this movie is sort of about. So we don't just get the backstory on Welles but also on Hearst. This is an episode of a show and as far as I know the only one I've watched of that show. And only because it was on the box set of Citizen Kane I have aquired (which I can highly recommend by the way).

If you are a fan of the movie and many are! While it is old and in black and white, it has not aged at all. It really holds up so good, you can watch it multiple times and discover new things every time. About the characters, about the dialog, about costumes and set design ... now those things are not so much topic of this documentary. There are other behind the scenes documentaries for that. And it's good it concentrates on the two as it does. And while I was aware of the radio show that riled up Americans (about an alien invasion - talk about pranks), there were still things to discover or at least hear from Welles and others who were affected.

Overall a very fine documentary, which may come off as dry for some, but has a lot of gems in it too.

Battle Over Citizen Kane, The (The American Experience) (1996)

*** (out of 4)

Season eight of The American Experience featured this documentary about the making of Orson Welles Citizen Kane, which would cause the director to do battle with William Randolph Hearst, the man Kane is based on. There's one huge problem with this film and that's that the film takes way too much time to dig into the actual making of the movie. We spend about an hour getting to know both Welles and Hearst, which is fine but I think too much time is spent here. We learn how Hearst ended up making his fortune (as well as losing) and how Welles became an overnight sensation with The War of the Words radio show. The most interesting aspects happen when we get to the making of the film and how Welles was running out of time to get a movie on the screen as many felt he'd never film anything. When the actual battle starts between the two men it's rather shocking and perhaps sad that neither Welles or Hearst had the decency to try and meet with one another to settle this thing instead of letting it take both of them over. The even sadder thing is that the movie Citizen Kane ended up being a bio of Welles as he ended up just like the character. I've often wondered if Welles got lost in the Kane character or perhaps he was the Kane character and this documentary makes it seem like he was the Kane character.

This is a disappointingly dull "American Experience" episode from PBS. It reduces one of the most fascinating films, the oft-proclaimed "greatest film ever made," "Citizen Kane," to a contest of wills between two men who were supposedly a lot alike (no, they weren't), filmmaker Orson Welles and newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst. Indeed, Charles Foster Kane was notoriously based on Hearst (as well as other rich men, but I guess that'd undermine the narrative here), but it's hardly the most interesting thing about the film despite occupying much of the space in popular assessments such as this TV documentary. "Kane" was an artfully unique way to tell a story, cinematographically (pan focus, unusual angles, etc.) and narratively (multi-perspective flashbacks, the film-within-the-film newsreel, etc.). It was rather anti-Hearst yellow journalism in that way. As far as biographical background sketch of Hearst and Welles and the film's contentious release, it's OK, I suppose, although the interviews are useless, but otherwise this is bad history--bad journalism.

Welles reduced to volatile fat failure--really, that's how "The Battle Over Citizen Kane" ends? It doesn't matter, apparently, that he went on to make other great or at least interesting films? No, they're just small budget. "Kane" only matters because it's prevailed as the narrative of Hearst's life? C'mon. If this is what PBS, of all venerable institutions, came up with, maybe Hearst did win.

The conflict between William Randolph Hearst, the press magnate, and Orson Welles, the greatest filmmaker of all time, over the latter's supposedly Hearst-bashing Citizen Kane is a relatively fascinating story (in the sense that real life is rarely as interesting as art), but there is very little new about it in this documentary.

American arts documentaries are generally inferior to British ones, favouring simplistic generalisations over thoughtful analysis. This film consists of footage and interviews that have mostly been seen before, and offers trite comparisons between Hearst's and Welles' life stories to give their clash a false sense of inevitablity and fatedness, when, as with everything, Welles used the bare bones of Hearst's life (it was Herman Mankiewicz's idea to satirise it in the first place) to film his own tragedy.

If you don't know the story, then this is, I suppose, as good a place as any to start. We get biographical sketches of Hearst and Welles, paralells between their notorious careers, and then the facts of the film's creation and reception. Although you can get all this in any popular encyclopaedia, there is much cherishable footage - e.g. Welles' voodoo Macbeth, the celebrity home movies of San Simeon, Welles' silly beard on arriving in Hollywood - and some splendid eye-witness accounts from William Alland (Thompson in Kane), Ruth Warwick (Mrs. Kane) and Norman Lloyd (a Mercury actor).

The range of interviewees in general, though, is very weak, generally plumping for the obvious (Wise, Bogdanovitch), neglecting contributions from Welles scholars, who might have added some complexity or artistic context to the story. There is little analysis of Kane itself within this biographical context - for this you must turn to David Thomson's exemplary, personality-charged biography, Rosebud.

The film also neglects to ask why, if Kane is such a hack-job on Hearst, why is Charles Foster Kane, monstrous flaws and all, such a rich, sympathetic, frequently awe-inspiring, tragic character, while his model was a despicable, mean-minded fascist? The film's only real insight - that Hearst's sole claim to posterity is his connection with Kane - has been proffered before.

Anyone still intrigued by this story after the film, but looking for something meatier, should check out both the Thomson book, and Welles' extraordinary 1982 BBC interview, several moving chunks of which are interspersed here.

Feature length documentary on the life of Orson Welles and William Randolph Hearst. The making of the film Citizen Kane, the controversy it had, and the battle between Hearst and Welles, with Hearst trying his best to make sure the film never was released. Very Interesting, never dull, and with some bits of trivia about the movie that isn't that well known. *** out of ****

There must still be relatives of William Randolph Hearst around who had something to do with this polished piece of junk. That this "documentary" was included as part of Warner's DVD of Citizen Kane is a disgrace, and a disservice (to say the least) to Welles. The whole tone of this film is anti-Welles, and, if not pro-Hearst, at least fairer to him than to Welles. It seems that every time an image of Welles appears on screen dark and sinister music underscores it, and the narration becomes ominous and insinuating, but when Hearst is shown happy, upbeat music is the rule. Welles is made out to be an arrogant, sometimes violent man, and no opportunity is missed to tell some denigrating anecdote about his appetites and ego. Hearst is treated far more gently, even though he was by far the more dangerous and destructive of the two men. Factual errors abound in this silly film; such as the totally inaccurate notion that Hearst was successful in ruining Welles, if not Citizen Kane. The sad truth is that Welles largely was his own worst enemy, abandoning projects like The Magnificent Ambersons before it had been completed. If Hearst was so successful in defeating Welles, why was it that the film was nominated for nine Academy Awards? That it "only" won one is cited as proof that Hearst had destroyed the picture AND Welles. Rubbish.