8/10
Historic truth?,..or Orson Welles' posthumous revenge?
1 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When Pauline Kael did her celebrated combination of original research and character assassination, entitled "Raising Kane", she mentioned that in the course of the final version of CITIZEN KANE that we have Orson Welles pruned out some events put into the script by Herman Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz, for example, wanted to make the eventual collapse of the first Kane marriage to Emily Norton Monroe to be caused by Kane's accidental encouragement of the assassination of Emily's uncle, the President of the United States. This was based on an incident that Hearst's enemies seized on involving Ambrose Bierce (a Hearst columnist in 1900-1901) writing a quatrain about the killing (in 1900) of Governor-elect William Goebel of Kentucky, that suggested that the missing assassination bullet was headed for Washington "to stretch McKinley on his bier." When Leon Czolgosz shot and killed the President in September 1901 Hearst's foes recalled the lines and said Hearst encouraged political murder. The original script for Kane had Emily accusing Charles for her uncle's death, and never forgiving him.

That was cut, with Emily's growing dislike for Charles based, instead on his ego, his concentration on his newspaper empire and political ambitions, and his neglect of her (and probably their son). The business with Susan Alexander is the final straw.

It was not the only cut of a sensational nature. In the final film Susan tells the reporter that he should speak to Raymond the butler because "(h)e knows where all the bodies are." In the original script Raymond was (with Susan) a witness to Kane actually killing a man, but covering it up. This is why Raymond remains so important to Kane in his later years. It also helps explain Susan's growing dislike for her husband.

It too was cut. Welles was wise here - everyone in Hollywood would have known what that was about, and any denials about Kane not being based on Hearst would have been dismissed because the dead man would have been too much of a coincidence to ignore.

In 1941 it was generally suspected throughout Hollywood (and in much of the U.S.) that William Randolph Hearst was in some way responsible for the death (in 1924) of movie director/producer/pioneer Thomas Ince. Ince had been one of a set of guests invited on Hearst's luxury yacht, the "Onieda" for a cruise. Others on the cruise included novelist Elinior Glyn, Hearst's mistress Marion Davies, the great Charlie Chaplin, Tom Ince, and a newcomer to the Hearst empire, gossip writer Louella Parsons. At some point on the trip (which was supposed to be a two week cruise) Ince was rushed ashore in serious condition and taken to a hospital. He died two days later. The cause was varied according to the bulletins, usually being either a heart attack or a stomach ailment. However, rumors soon emerged that an incident happened on board the Oneida that led to the shooting of Ince, probably at the hands of Hearst.

The story has never completely died, and even today there is a small body of evidence that Ince did not die a natural death. The basic scenario was that Ince was on deck when Hearst was chasing Chaplin (who had been fooling around with Davies) and in shooting at Chaplin Hearst accidentally wounded Ince. Hearst was powerful enough to clamp down on the tragedy, but at the same time there was a cost: Louella Parsons was just a new employee at the time. Now, she blackmailed her boss into making her a national columnist and a real power in Hollywood.

Peter Bogdanovitch (who directed THE CAT'S MEOW) was a close friend of Orson Welles. One can't quite get it out of one's head that this film, a twisted "prequill" to KANE, was meant as Bogdanovitch's homage to the classic film and his attempt to smear Hearst, who after 1941 did everything he could to hurt Welles.

The period detail is very good, and Edward Herrmann makes a dandy Hearst (sort of a return to the mad playboy husband of Goldie Hawn in OVERBOARD, which also takes place on a yacht). Certainly he is supremely confident as the millionaire, but he is also smart. A running story line is that Tom Ince (Cary Elwys) is trying to get Hearst's backing for a rejuvenation of Ince's film career (supposedly on the verge of collapse in 1924) but that Hearst is not stupid enough to waste his money that way. However, Herrmann does also demonstrate that he is more than a little possessive about Ms Davies (Kirsten Dunst), and that he is worried about that little cockney Chaplin (Eddie Izzard) going after his woman. Certainly Chaplin's reputation with the ladies was enough to give any man pause. Jennifer Tilly (Louella Parsons) certainly is keeping her eyes open (she is, after all, a gossip writer), and it pays dividends at the end. As for Joanne Lumley as Elinor Glyn, she gives the film a kind of narrative and framework (Glyn, by the way, if you can't recall her was the woman who termed the euphemism for sex appeal as "it", and was to make a screenplay called "It" that starred Clara Bow, who became the "It girl" - otherwise she has become pretty forgotten).

The film is worth watching - not perhaps another PAPER MOON or LAST PICTURE SHOW, but better than AT LONG LAST LOVE. Do I think Hearst killed Ince? If he did it was a sheer accident, because who would kill a well known figure under such circumstances as part of a comprehensive murder plan!
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed