Citizen Kane Book

by Pauline Kael

Contents:
Raising Kane / by Pauline Kael --
The shooting script / by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles --
Notes on the shooting script / prepared by Gary Carey --
RKO cutting continuity of the Orson Welles production, Citizen Kane.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Media Tie In, Art, History, Criticism, Biography

466 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Pauline Kael was an American film critic who wrote for The New Yorker magazine from 1968 to 1991. She was known for her "witty, biting, highly opinionated, and sharply focused" movie reviews. She approached movies emotionally, with a strongly colloquial writing style. She is often regarded as the most influential American film critic of her day and made a lasting impression on other major critics including Armond White and Roger Ebert, who has said that Kael "had a more positive influence on the climate for film in America than any other single person over the last three decades."

Reviews

[ع. ر. افّلا · Rating 4 out of 5]

یک
سال ۲۰۲۰ بود و من که سر کرونا از کافه اخراج شده بودم و پولی برای اجاره و غذا و سیگار نداشتم، مستأصلانه در توئیتر درخواست کار دادم، و با جذاب‌ترین پیشنهاد کاری عمرم مواجه شدم: ویراستاری برای نشر خوب. البته که من به دوست پیشنهادکننده توضیح دادم گه از ویراستاری نمی‌دونم اما اون گفت برم ببینم چی می‌شه. من هم تست‌های اولیه رو با موفقیت طی کردم و بهم کتابی ماجراجویانه به سبک ایندیاناجونز دادن و گفتن طی یک ماه تحویل بدم. من با یک بررسی اجمالی بهشون گفتم یک ماه کمه، و اونام گفتن بیشترم شد شد. بعداز ۲۵ روز وقتی ازم پرسیدن کار در چه حاله، من که فقط یک‌سومش رو انجام داده بودم، گفتم دوسومش رو انجام دادم، و مگه نگفتن بیش از یک ماه هم اوکیه؟
پرانتز: من داشتم ترجمه مترجم رو بازنویسی می‌کردم و تنها کلماتی که از ایشون باقی می‌موند «از، در، با و برای» بود، و آهان، «می‌کند، است، بود».
گفتن منظورمون مثلا دو سه روز بود و این چه وضعشه و اینا. من که اصلا نمی‌دونستم چیکار کنم دیالوگی سرنوشت‌ساز شنیدم: نیاز نیست خیلی وسواسی برخورد کنی، صرفا اگر مشکلی دیدی درستش کن.
از اینجا به بعد کار من تبدیل شد به یک تندخوان که فقط اگر جایی چشمش گیر می‌کرد به یه ویرگول اشتباه درستش می‌کرد و رد می‌شد. نتیجه رو سه روز بعد فرستادم، یعنی ۲ روز زودتر از ددلاین اصلی. خبری نشد. یک ماه گذشت، خبری نشد. چند بار پیگیری کردم و پیچوندن. عاقبت با رابط اصلیم ارتباط گرفتم و خواستم بدونم قضیه چیه. گفتش آقای رضائی شما عملا توی ۷۰٪ متن هیچ کاری نکردید، و این کوتاهی شما کار ما رو که قرار بود سر ماه کتاب رو برسونیم عقب انداخت و کلی آدم دست‌به‌کار شدن که کتاب آماده شه و نمی‌تونیم استخدامتون کنیم. گفتم بابت همون ۳۰٪ مبلغی بهم می‌دید؟ گفتن نه. گفتم من نیاز دارم شرایطم بده و فلان، و تهدید هم کردم، گفتم در غیر این صورت پیامدهاش به گردن خودتونه (ایده‌ام این بود که اگر فروشگاه دارن برم آتیشش بزنم)، گفت الان این تهدیده؟ گفتم من واضح گفتم، گفت باشه صحبت می‌کنه باهاشون. بازم گذشت و خبری نشد. زنگ زدم، گفتن فردا، فردا واریز نشد، این بار زنگ زدم و داد می‌زدم که همین الان باید پول منو واریز کنید. پاسخگو گفت گفتن واریز شده، گفتم نشده، گفت پس من دیگه اطلاعی ندارم، (همچنان با فریاد) گفتم پس چرا تو رو گذاشتن اونجا؟ تو چیکاره‌ای؟ و عاقبت هم فرداش واریز شد.
بازی روزگار باعث شد خودم رو به پیشنهاد کاری بعدی تن بدم: پشتیبانی تلفنی. الان ۴ ساله که من هر روز با اشخاصی صحبت می‌کنم که مثل همون روز خودم شاکی و طلبکارن و کاری از من ساخته نیست و اونا این رو نمی‌فهمن. این کار باعث‌ شد عصبی، افسرده، ملول و بدبخت بشم، اما هر بار که به اون دختر پاسخگوی نشر خوب فکر می‌کنم، به خودم می‌گه: حقته. حتی بدتر از اینام حقته.
بارها فکر کردم زنگ بزنم به نشر خوب و ببینم آیا اون شخص اونجا ست و امکان عذرخواهی دارم؟ اما این کار هم مثل تصمیم برای یافتن مادری که هرگز ندیدم، مثل کراشی بیان‌نشده، و هزارویک تصمیم مهم دیگه، به کنج انفعال همیشگی ذهنم رفت و مثل خوره روحم رو خورد و تراشید.
علت بیان این تجربه در درجه اول شباهتش به به‌گایی‌های هرمن منکویتس بود، و در درجه دوم اینکه این کتاب رو نشر خوب منتشر کرده. (خودتون توی ذهنتون این رو هم اضافه کنید: در درجه سوم اسگلی بابا).


دو
من سینما را بیشتر از ادبیات دوست دارم (نه لترباکس نیستم)، و همشهری‌کین از خاص‌ترین فیلم‌های زندگی من است، فیلمی که از سویی نگاهم به هنر را تغییر داد، و از سوی دیگر مرا از افسردگی آن‌دورانم رهانید. همشهری‌کین مثل بارسلونای دوران مسی و ژاوی و اینیستا ست: وقتی سه نابغه به هم می‌رسند و چنان جرقه‌ای می‌زنند که هنوز هم کورکننده است: گرگ تولند فیلمبردار، منکوویتس فیلمنامه‌نویس و اورسن ولز همه‌فن‌حریف. از آن اتفاق‌هایی که می‌گویند هر هزار سال یکبار رخ می‌دهد. اگر فیلم را دیده‌اید کتاب را بخوانید، و اگر ندیده‌اید ببینید و کتاب را بخوانید. این کتاب مملو است از گاسیپ، مافیا، پشت‌پردهٔ سینما، تقریبا هر کسی که کوچکترین ربطی به فیلم داشته، روزنامه‌نگاری، کمدی، فاصله‌گذاری و کلی دیتا و تحلیل و نقد. خواندنش برای من تجربه‌ای محسور کننده بود.


سه
کتاب در مقام فرم اثر لذتبخشی است، اما به لحاظ محتوایی ایرادهای زیادی به آن وارد است. درواقع این کتاب جوابیه‌ای ست به همهٔ کسانی که فکر می‌کردند ولز ۲۵ساله همه‌کارهٔ همشهری‌کین است و بر اهمیت نقش منکوویتس پافشاری می‌کند، به‌طوریکه بعدا منبع الهام ساخت فیلم منک می‌شود. من ادامه نقدها را با کمک گروک نقل می‌کنم (به طرز آیرونیکی یکی از منابع گروک همین گودریدز بود).
- بخش زیادی از مطالب تحقیقی کتاب از پژوهش‌های رابرت برادی برداشته شده، اما منبع ذکر نشده.
- کیل اصرار دارد که فیلمنامه تمام‌وکمال کار منکوویتس است، درحالیکه شواهد نشان می‌دهد ولز تغییرات گسترده‌ای در فیلمنامه اعمال کرده بود (از جمله بهم‌زدن ترتیب زمانی روایت‌ها و شروع فیلم با مرگ کین).
- حمله این کتاب به نظریهٔ مؤلف (که کارگردان را مؤلف اصلی فیلم می‌دانست) بسیار سطحی است و در حد شعارهایی احساساتی باقی می‌ماند.
کیل برخلاف مؤلف‌گراها اصرار داشت فیلم ولز سطحی و عوامانه است اما تعداد بسیار مقالاتی که آن را از جنبه‌های فلسفی، روانشناختی، سیاسی و جامعه‌شناختی بررسی کرده‌اند و معانی متعددی در آن یافته‌اند حرف دیگری می‌زند.


چهار
من این مجموعه نشر خوب رو دیده بودم اما اصلا توجهم بهش جلب نشد (چیزی که زیاده مجموعهٔ سینماییه) ولی وقتی دیدم امیرحسین داره این کتاب رو می‌خونه رفتم چک کردم دیدم پالین کیل بزرگ نوشته‌اش و ترغیب شدم بخونمش. از امیرحسین ممنونم که حتی ناخواسته هم باعث اتفاق‌های خوب می‌شه.

[Jake · Rating 1 out of 5]

Pauline Kael was one of the great film critics, but this book has been throughly discredited over the years. Her writing is witty, sharp, and often insightful, but her central thesis is deeply flawed.

[David Linzee · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Raising Kane" is one of the most enjoyable pieces of nonfiction I've ever read. I've revisited it countless times since it was published in 1971. Over the years, though, I've developed mixed feelings about it. Film buffs coming to it now should know that back in the '70s, it was attacked by partisans of Orson Welles faulting Pauline Kael's blanket statement that he did not write one word of the screenplay. The critics cast considerable doubt on Kael's accuracy in this and other statements. She never replied, and she never wrote another long researched essay on a classic film. We can only consider this a confession of error. Another problem: Kael's approach throughout the essay is to disassemble the film and source each piece. It goes like this: The scene is based on an incident in Hearst's life, which Mankiewicz modified because he was a cynical screenwriter feeding popular taste, and which Welles shot the way he did because of a suggestion from Gregg Toland. (NB: this is not a quote, but an example of the approach.) It makes for an entertaining blend of history, biography, and criticism, but Kael presents her speculation as fact. It's also a conversation-stopper. How can a reader offer another interpretation, when Kael is maintaining (falsely) that what she's saying is not her interpretation but fact? It's unfortunate, because Kael's thesis is plausible. It was something that needed to heard in 1971. The auteur theory had been altered into a view of film-making that maintained that the director had all the ideas and told everybody what to do. Kael countered that the director (if he's a good one) gathers talented people and listens to what they have to say. He points the way and makes decisions, but he's not the "author" in the way a writer is the author of a novel. In 1971, her valid point got lost in the controversy over her sloppy mistakes.

[Jay Wood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Making films, even ones where everyone has trust in you, sounds next to impossible

[Jeff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pauline Kael got messed up. She was by now reviewing half the year at The New Yorker; feeling for her during her hiatus, her editor (who was paying her too little), William Shawn, assigned her a long piece on the scholarship emerging around the authorship of the Citizen Kane script. Welles was typically on television during these days trying to raise money for The Other Side of the Wind. For ten years he'd been on this Anglo-American television circuit, and Kael was chagrined that in all the popular attention on Welles, fueled by the auteur theory, and the development of film programs on both coasts, Welles typically elided the collaborative labors of Herman Mankiewicz, Gregg Toland as well as others involved in Citizen Kane. Kael was a huge Welles fan but she was turning on him because of other discourses in which she had a stake. There's a 1960 interview of Welles, which Kael mentions early in the essay -- it's here:

Kael wrote a 120 pp. monograph -- evidently trying to incorporate some prodigious research (without research apparatus), as well as reporting (interviews with Hollywood people around Mankiewicz and Welles) and personal journalism (anecdotes from her own viewing experiences of Welles and Kane) into a report on the essential question of how the script for Kane emerged. Early in the essay, Kael implies a reasonable surmise: that stories of -- as it was then called -- American's first getting dictated by Mankiewicz to Rita Alexander have, as their witnesses, only Alexander and John Houseman, for both of whom "the temptation must have been strong to expose what they considered this savior's clay feet." That being a case, there's room for Francois Truffaut's argument, about Kael's essay, that if we distinguish a shooting script from the document upon which we'd like to place some literary (originary) value, for as Agee had said, that literary document has often only a phantom sort of projection of what will get on the screen, then, as Truffaut goes on, there are three phases upon which to consider: the mise en scene of the written work; the shooting script, or script that's used on set; and the (trans)script as it emerges from the editing room. (If a movie sucks, it's likely this last phase, sometimes referred to as "the cutting script," will never achieve document-status.) Truffaut's point is that it's hopeless to consider the authorship of Citizen Kane without taking into consideration all three projections of a "script," and Kael insists on conflating the question of authorship of the originary phase with authorship in the other two. So, she concludes, Mankiewicz was the sole author -- when she actually knows better.

Welles' television personality, with its arrogation of those duties to the editing room -- that for Kane he had been invited into, the one time the Hollywood studio system conferred on him that privilege -- forced Kael's hand; for all the reasonable bits of narrative exposition her essay on Kane undertakes, she had an axe to grind, the block back on the auteur theory. As a scholar, she got it wrong. As an essay, it makes for lumpy reading: the whole first part of it, after acknowledging her admiration for Welles, contextualizes Mankiewicz's contributions to the 30s comedies (which by itself would have more than justified a scheme to recuperate "Mank"), and has the effect of really leveling Welles; the second half tries to build him back up again, while insisting on her points about film collaboration. It's too much -- not the only time, btw, Kael went too far in arguing a point with a curious blind spot; it's simply not possible, I've always thought, that she wrote that enormous (and dull) essay on Cary Grant without understanding Grant's sexuality.

Welles took umbrage at this book -- too much, I think. It certainly didn't, as his supporters claim, "ruin him." As he had difficulty getting The Other Side of the Wind made, he may have lost track, slightly, of how important his personal story was to the development of cinema in Europe and the United States -- and really, everywhere after 1950. He may have let Kael's skepticism undo his youthful arrogance. The argument over the authorship of Citizen Kane is a story about the power of an art form, and Welles the shaman plays a crucial person in that power. That story far transcends Pauline Kael. But I don't think she was proud of this essay, ultimately. She may have seen that she'd been swept up in forces larger than her historiography could tame.

[Tom Schulte · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the second time I have read this fan's tale of Citizen Kane. Pauline Kael is an admitted fan of the classic era of film; the birth of sound with clear ties to theatre. With Kane, Orson Welles is ascendant with his Mercury Theatre crew in tow from that world meeting Herman J. Mankiewicz (original screen play), descending into the bottle. The details of this contrived portrayal of Hearst and its "Rosebud" joke is covered in the first half of the book. Much of the second part is "The Shooting Script". I actually watched the film and followed it. For my part, the few differences are all better than the script. You don't have to do the same exercise to detect them, as they are all noted in this book. There is also for the truly committed fan the "RKO Cutting Continuity" script.

[Johnny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Rosebud is his sled, people. Get it? HIS FREAKIN' SLED!!!!!

[Ólafur Björn Tómasson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pauline Kael var algjör drottning kvikmyndagagnrýnenda og þrátt fyrir að maður geti verið ósammála einhverjum af dómum hennar, er beinskeytt orðalag hennar og krafa til gæða virðingarvert og augljóslega að koma frá stað af ást fyrir kvikmyndum fremur en blind aðdáaun.

Kael var einn harðasti gagnrýnenda höfundarkenningarinnar (allavegana eins og hinn sjálfskipaði páfi þeirrar hugmyndar Andrew Sarris kynnti hana) og er þessi 50.000 orða esseyja hennar ítarleg rannsókn á Citizen Kane með marktækari gagnrýni sem er að finna um höfundarkenninguna.

Afbygging Kael á Kane beinir sjónum sínum að handritshöfundi Citizen Kane, honum Herman J. Mankiewicz og vill hún meina að hafi verið lykilmaður í framleiðslu á þessu sígilda meistaraverki kvikmyndasögunnar. Þegar rætt er um Kane er Mankiewicz vanalega ekki nefndur á nafn, en Kael sýnir fram hvernig handritið kemur frá hans persónulegu reynslu í kringum fjölmiðlajöfurinn William Randolph Hearst og hvernig handritaskrif Mankiewicz á gamanmyndum í Hollywood á þriðja áratuginum skilaði sér inn í handritið.

Kael nefnir einnig aðkomu tökumeistarans Gregg Toland og þá sérlega hvernig tvær myndir sem hann tók upp Mad Love (leikstj. Karl Freund) og The Long Voyage Home (leikstj.John Ford) hafi komið að góðum notum við sviðssetningu á Kane.

Það var stórt mál að Toland hafi boðið krafta sína fyrir Kane þar sem Toland hafði slegið rækilega í gegn í Hollywood og hafði ári fyrr unnið Óskarinn fyrir Wuthering Heights (leikstj. William Wyler). Toland hefði getað valið aðrar myndir en litla framleiðslu á borð við Kane, en hann hefur séð eitthvað merkilegt við Welles ásamt því að hér væri tækifæri til að heiðra vin sinn Karl Freunde með því að innleiða það sem Freunde hafði kennt sér árum áður.

Dyggustu fylgjendur Welles voru ævareiðir þegar Kael gaf út esseyjuna og vildu meina að Welles hefði haft stórkostlega mikil áhrif á framleiðslu Kane. Kael dregur það ekki í efa og segir meira að segja mjög skýrt og oft að myndin nær ákveðnum hápunktum og kemst handan galla handritsins sökum færni Welles á sviði og í útvarpi.

Orðspor Kael sem harðsvíraður gagnrýnandi á kvikmyndir og höfundarkenninguna hefur vafalaust mótað viðtökur mann á borð við Sarris og Bogdanovich. Þrátt fyrir það sækir Kael eftir mennskunni í myndinni og vill meina að þær miklu kröfur sem voru lagðar á Welles hafi skyggt á listrænt velgengi hans. Welles var gríðarlega hæfileikaríkur að mati Kael og er sá hæfileiki aldrei dregin í efa. En þegar maðurinn hefur verið auglýstur sem snillingur af náttúrunnar hendi og myndin bein afurð sem er komin eingöngu frá Welles, þá er augljóst að eitthvað er rotið í ríkinu.

Líkt og ég nefndi hér fyrir ofan var Kael mjög gagnrýnin á bandarísku höfundarkenninguna og er að finna ítarlegri kviðristun hennar á rétttrúnaði og formúlusmíðum Sarris í grein hennar "Circles and Squares". Þar sem styrkur esseyjunnar liggur er í einlægri og uppbyggilegri gagnrýni á Citizen Kane.

Kael álítur að kvikmyndin sé sarpmiðill sem í flestum tilfellum krefst fjölda einstaklinga sem ná að koma saman á réttum stað og tíma. Jafn vel þá er það ekki gefið að kvikmynd muni ná stöðu meistaraverks líkt og Citizen Kane.

Það tekur fleiri en bara einn snilling til að búa til snilld og þess vegna er það óréttlátt gagnvart öllum sem unnu að Citizen Kane hvernig reynt var að þurrka störf Herman J. Mankiewicz við gerð myndarinnar og nær það óréttlæti einnig til Welles.

[Paul Duke · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is wildly misunderstood. If all you've heard about this book is "Pauline Kael attacked Orson Welles and claimed he had nothing to do with the script of Citizen Kane", would you believe me if I told you this is PK's actual conclusion in the book? And I quote: "Welles had a vitalizing, spellbinding talent; he was the man who brought out the best in others and knew how to use it. What keeps 'Citizen Kane' alive is that Welles wasn't prevented (as so many directors are) from trying things out." Now that I've debunked what you've heard about this book, let me quickly summarize what it says. Part 1 (google for it in the New Yorker in 1971, the whole thing is online) argues that Herman Mankiewicz was part of a group of ex-journalists (such as Ben Hecht) who brought a new, no-nonsense, unpretentious vitality to American movies in the 30s when sound came in. "He wrote the kind of movies that were disapproved of as 'fast' and immoral." If you've read a lot of Kael - and I have - you already recognize that this is exactly what Kael always has celebrated in American movies, street-smart fun and energy. Ok, having established Mankiewicz among these writers who like urban subjects and lively cynicism (she notes a couple of times that in the 30s, HM worked as a producer for the Marx Brothers), she then says that "Citizen Kane", the movie, was the ultimate comedy at the end of this period. (CK was released in 1941.) In part 2 of the essay (again, findable online; the whole thing total is roughly equal to a 200-page paperback) Kael argues that Mankiewicz knew William Hearst (the tabloid newspaper baron whose real life story "Citizen Kane" is a variation on) and suggested the story to Welles, who had been brought out to Hollywood after huge stage successes in New York to make his first movie. HM then wrote a 300 page first draft that Kael criticizes at great length for sacrificing dramatic power to HM's own autobiographical desire to include a general takedown of Hearst. Then she explains how Welles' instincts as a showman led him to get the best out of the Hollywood craftsmen he worked with, such as the cinematographer Gregg Toland, and as well out of the company of actors he often worked with, who he used in the movie. Okay, yes, Kael criticizes Welles for claiming full credit for the script (as Welles was required to do contractually; HM fought him in the writer's union and won half-credit), even calls "Welles" a "bum" at one point for publicly claiming full credit. But that aspect of the book amounts to about 1/40th of the content. The rest of it is the story of how "Citizen Kane" got to be a great movie, and what kind of great movie it is. Regarding Welles himself, her message is that it's a tragedy of American art that his talent was unrecognized by Hollywood and that the dispute with Hearst over the movie (Hearst hated it and some of his friends in the film industry tried to buy the negative in order to destroy it before it could be released) led Hollywood to shun him forever. Not at all what you've likely heard about this book. Well worth reading for movie fans; essential for Kael fans.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this after reading about the upcoming film "Mank." It's the best kind of New Yorker essay-- long, discursive, and filled with minute details and facts that reframe as a matter-of-fact an understanding, in this case, of the twisted authorship of Citizen Kane and the way Welles, who certainly doesn't come across as a villain, still falls into the auteur's trap of believing their own press. And it's the worst kind of New Yorker essay-- long, rambling between loosely connected ideas as the writer has them, and, without notes or citations, not always clear where the authorial voice ends and the source material begins. Given that it's the better part of 50 years old, there's nothing a film buff will find new, and nothing that a Pauline Kael fan will want to impeach: this is well worth a read if, like me, you haven't yet read it, and mostly, fills in a gap left by the Film Studies 200 class I personally took 25 years ago!

[David Fulmer · Rating 5 out of 5]

This fabled essay about the making of, the inspirations of, the long life of, Citizen Kane, that greatest of all movies, is a delicious buffet of film analysis, Hollywood history, biography, American history, and much, much more. Kael’s analysis of the film is deep and contextual. She looks at the films that came before and after it, at the trends in society in media, at radio, at dialogue. She investigates the Hearst connection, she traces rosebud to a combination of Citizen Kane script author Herman Mankiewicz’s boyhood sled and boyhood bicycle which was stolen and mourned. She never misses an opportunity to throw in a good joke or anecdote about famous Hollywood personalities. Her observations are witty and brilliant; an example: “The movie industry is always frightened, and is always proudest of films that celebrate courage.” This is a book which will enrich your appreciation for “Citizen Kane” even as it can stand on its own as a great book on Hollywood.

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

About a third of this 1971 book is by Pauline Kael, the renowned (and sometimes reviled) film critic, writing about the creation of 'Citizen Kane' and giving credit where it had not always been given to Herman Mankiewicz as the writer (Welles claimed the writing credit for himself) while putting the making of the film in the context of the lives of William Randolph Hearst, Marian Davies, Mankiewicz and Welles as well as the state of the art of filmmaking at the time. Her writing is always colloquial and conversational and her insights are always interesting and often iconoclastic. She was never shy about having an opinion. The second third of the book is the shooting script of the film, which is fun to read. The final third is the cutting script--the more technical production script--less readable and less interesting unless you're an actual film maker.

[Steve Bowbrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kael really didn’t like Orson Welles much and she wrote a long article for the New Yorker in 1971 in which she disputed his authorship of his masterwork. She documented her theory that the whole thing was really the work of writer Herman Mankiewicz, that Welles was a shallow showman who downplayed all of his collaborators' contributions to this work of art. Her theories have been debunked - mainly by Peter Bogdanovich - but the essay is a bracing, common-sense challenge to the whole idea of the auteur. This version, which is still in print, includes a fascinating facsimile of the film’s script and some other essays.

I included this book in this survey of books about film.

[Joe Meyers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps Pauline Karl’s best piece of writing, a long account of the making of the great film ‘Citizen Kane.’ Originally published in two parts in The New Yorker, the material was then combined with the shooting script and presented in book form. Kael shows us how revolutionary Welles’ deal with RKO was at the time - he was free to make whatever film he wished and then had final cut on the results. But she also documents screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz’s crucial contribution to the project - he knew the model for Kane, publisher William Randolph Hearst, very well, making the script a satiric unauthorized biography. The book is a remarkable combination of reporting and criticism. It’s a shame Kael never did another piece with this scope.

[Churchill Osimbo · Rating 4 out of 5]

The real details of who came up with what will never be revealed at this point, too many people have died already and their lies have tangled up and tripped over each others. If you're gonna read this book, it should be for a longing to experience the making of the film through the mind of the greatest American film critic. Her recap of history and her dissection of it, you won't find truth here, but you'll get some entertaining information.

[Jaydon Farao · Rating 3 out of 5]

She really tried with this scalding take on authorship of CITIZEN KANE. I read it as a cautionary tale on how a thesis can be beautifully and compellingly written, while proving false in many respects. Hollywood was so wild lol and I love mess so please give us more film criticism of this length and skill but make it true.

[Andy]

Access to the screenplay and the cutting/continuity is excellent.
Kael's experience of being a cinema-goer in the 1930s in general and in that first decade of the talkies is very useful, but her cultural commentary is often reprehensible.

[Duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pauline Kael’s ‘Raising Kane’ 80 page essay, which makes-up 1/3 of this book, is absolutely superb.

It’s essential reading for any fan of Kane and Welles.

Kael’s personal recollections of the move from silents to talkies, and of her bumping into William Randolph Hearst are wonderful.

[Mohammad Rasouli · Rating 2 out of 5]

اسم کتاب این نباید باشه چون انتظار ایجاد می‌کنه که درباره‌ی فیلم بخونی ولی عملا فقط درباره‌ی ولز-منک-هرست نوشته شده. از نظر تاریخ سینمایی تا حدودی مفیده چون پالین کیل انقدر سوگیری داره که باید با روایت‌های دیگه چک کرد ولی برای کسی که می‌خواد درباره‌ی خود فیلم تحلیل بخونه چیز خاصی گیرش نمیاد!

[Blakepatterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best and most informative analysis to ever be written about Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

Between the shooting script and Kael's (disputed) account of the film's creation, an essential resource for fans of the film.

[Metalfist · Rating 3 out of 5]

Citizen Kane wordt zowat algemeen geroemd als één van de beste films aller tijden, maar ik moet zeggen dat het kwartje indertijd niet viel. Een herziening deed echter alles op zijn plaats vallen en hoewel ik ander werk van Orson Welles nog sterker vind (Macbeth!), blijf ik wel een zwak hebben voor wat Welles als 24-jarige neerzette. In die mate zelfs dat ik flink wat leesmateriaal heb liggen rond Citizen Kane (en Welles in het bijzonder) waarvan deze The Citizen Kane Book er eentje is. Een combinatie van een essay dat ooit in The New Yorker verscheen en het shooting script van de film zelf.

En razend interessant, ware het niet dat je dit allemaal met een flinke - erg flinke - korrel zou moet nemen. Een beetje achtergrond is echter misschien wel nodig en daarbij moet je vooral in het achterhoofd houden dat Pauline Kael jarenlang filmcriticus voor The New Yorker was en daardoor blijkbaar kon ontsnappen aan de strikte fact checking policy van het magazine. Had ze wel haar bronnen moeten verantwoorden, dan had het een heel ander verhaal geweest want in de loop der jaren is Kael compleet door de mand gevallen. Zo was het regisseur Peter Bogdanovich (en goede vriend van Orson Welles, hetgeen hem ook niet helemaal objectief maakt) die ontdekte dat Kael weinig research zelf heeft gedaan maar gebruik maakte van het werk van Howard Suber. Die had voor zijn werk interviews gedaan met onder andere de secretaresse van Mankiewicz's (Rita Alexander) de weduwe van Mankiewicz (Sara Mankiewicz) filmeditor Robert Wise, de assistent van Welles (Richard Wilson) en Dorothy Comingore die in de film de rol van Susan Alexander Kane speelt.

Kael gaf hem de mogelijkheid om ook een essay voor het 30-jarig bestaan van de film te schrijven, maar aangezien Suber geen tijd had (en het ook een stom idee vond om allebei een essay te schrijven over hetzelfde onderwerp) besloot hij Kael zijn materiaal te geven in ruil voor een deel van het geld dat Kael van The New Yorker kreeg en zijn naam als co-auteur in het artikel. Kael besloot echter om a) die afspraak niet volledig na te komen en b) uit het materiaal van Suber enkel maar hetgeen te halen wat in haar eigen plaatje paste. Het resultaat zijn volstrekte leugens en een poging om het werk van Welles naar beneden te halen en het werk van Mankiewicz naar een hoger niveau te brengen. Hoewel ik ervan overtuigd ben dat er sommige dingen niet overdreven zijn (Welles heeft inderdaad een arrogant kantje), haalt Kael op deze manier haar werk volledig onderuit. In de jaren die erop volgden kwam er meer en meer bewijs naar boven dat ze bepaalde roddels voor waar heeft aangenomen, ontkenden sommige getuigen dat ze ooit met haar hebben gesproken en blijkt ze volledig de kant van Mankiewicz te hebben gekozen waardoor Welles zelf nooit is geïnterviewd maar ook mensen die de pro-Mankiewicz getuigenissen tegenspraken compleet genegeerd werden.

Het resultaat? Een eerbetoon aan Kael uit 2011 genaamd The Age of Movies: Selected Writings of Pauline Kael bevat haar meest besproken essay niet.. De schade aan de reputatie van Welles was niet te onderschatten en hoewel er in de loop der jaren vele rechtzettingen zijn uitgebracht, had geen enkele de impact die het essay van Kael wel had. Welles was naar het schijnt serieus geïrriteerd hierdoor maar langs de andere kant had hij ook nog wel een voordeel aan het succes van het essay. Het werd namelijk in boekvorm uitgebracht met het shooting script (waar zowel Welles en Mankiewicz werden gecrediteerd, het gerucht gaat zelfs dat het Welles zelf was die erop stond dat Mankiewicz als eerste werd gecrediteerd) waardoor Welles ook een centje kreeg voor elk verkocht exemplaar.. De man kon op bepaalde momenten in zijn carrière het geld goed gebruiken dus het is een mes dat aan twee kanten heeft gesneden. Ondertussen zijn alle personen overleden (Welles in 1985, Mankiewicz in 1953 en Kael in 2001) dus enkel de erfgenamen hebben er nu nog profijt van.

En wat vind Metalfist er nu uiteindelijk van? Hij weet het niet goed. Kael brengt een aantal interessante punten en ik denk dat de backlash die ze heeft gekregen niet helemaal verdiend was, maar het feit blijft wel dat haar geloofwaardigheid compleet onderuit is gehaald. Daarvoor zou ik dit normaal gezien met 1.5* hebben 'beloond' maar aangezien dit is uitgebracht met het effectieve script (en de kwaliteit daarvan wel gewoon uitstekend is), wordt het dus 3*

[Patricia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Accounts for who really wrote the screenplay (Mankiewicz not Welles), why the movie both made and ruined Welles' career for the future, and what conditions were like in Hollywood when the movie first was shown. This is a valuable reference for film students. Pauline Kael does have her crotchets, though, and sometimes you wish she were in the room with you so that you could argue back. She gives the auteur theory a run for its money.

[Darrell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting book for film fans. I don't know what creditable the author is with her information, but the movie is completely mesmerizing and that is enough to keep the pages turning. For some really cool info, try the PBS documentary that comes with some video copies of the film.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

This more than satisfied my interest in the film. Someday I'd like to read more about Wells. The famous stuff. I know pretty well, even some of the less well known, but I'm missing an overall narrative. Was he a genius or a gluttonist self promoting hedonist.

[Christy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I didn't realize until I read the manuscript (having not watched the movie in a while)that Jack White totally spoofs the song...pretty neato.

[Brooks Whitlock · Rating 3 out of 5]

crazy if true