Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Edited Three Minutes From Citizen Kane


Leanox
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Does anyone know of the edited/missing three minutes from Citizen Kane?

My understanding is that Welles had to do this at the "request" of RKO in order for the film to be released.

Hearst felt these three min., the subject matter, was derogatory to him.

Any information would be appreciated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than likely, it had to do with the term "Rosebud." According to several books I have read, Hearst was absolutely livid when he heard that that term was being used in the movie. It was at that point that he was going to do anything he could to block the film from being distributed. Apparently, after lawyers and all got involved, RKO & Hearst came to a compromise to the point where they cut out some of the references to that word being used. I am sure you all know by now that "Rosebud" - the name of CK's boyhood sleigh, was called that. But, that was also the name that Hearst used for Marion Davies so-called "private parts." How in the world Orson Wells got ahold of that information was probably the best kept secret in Hollywood. I am not sure if it is known today. Regardless, it certainly made Hearst determined to ruin this movie, if he could. And all it did was add publicity for the release of the film when it premiered - people wanted to see it more than ever.

When I finally saw Citizen Kane in the middle of the night ( no VCR's back then), I thought it was good. But I had to watch it a couple of more times to see the significance of important events as they unfolded in the movie. It was a totally different style of movie - totally new and unique. You really had to watch it closely to see everything. And considering the importance of the subject, this film was and still is an amazing presence in American film history. I know a lot of younger people than me (63 yrs. OLD) don't appreciate this movie, but it is a remarkable story about a time in Hollywood that no longer exists. For those of us who know the background, this movie is one of the most important movies ever made. It should rank up there with the very best - fortunately it still does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe any of this. "Rosebud" is the very mechanism that propels the film's plot, is spoken perhaps a half-dozen times, and seen on the sled as it's consumed by flames in the furnace. If Hearst was so apoplectic over its inclusion, then even one mention would have been one too many.

 

It's quite simple: there can't have been anything removed at Hearst's insistence for two reasons:

 

One: The film couldn't have survived dramatically with mention of "Rosebud" excised, and

 

 

Two: Welles's contract for KANE with RKO was ironclad, and entirely in his favor.

 

The very same protections he negotiated that prevented Ted Turner from colorizing the film forty years later also handcuffed RKO, which otherwise would have acceded to Hearst's demands. The studio wouldn't make the same mistake twice, however -- that's why they were able to cut and re-shoot THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS while Welles was in South America.

 

 

As RKO campaign manual for their exhibitors crowed about their production slate for 1942: "Showmanship instead of genius!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=bagladymimi wrote

> }{quote} "Rosebud" - . . .was also the name that Hearst used for Marion Davies so-called "private parts." How in the world Orson Wells got ahold of that information was probably the best kept secret in Hollywood. I am not sure if it is known today.

What I read (or perhaps saw in a documentary), baglady, was that Herman Mankiewisz knew that information. He was a regular attendee at Hearst's parties at one time & was close to Marion Davies--& she's the one who told Mankiewisz. Don't know how true it is (you're right--I doubt anybody in the year 2012 knows for sure) but it does sound plausible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same information I have read, and seen in a documentary, over the years.

I recall that the screenplay/script was in Mank's hands, he gave it to Marion's nephew (another regular at San Simeon) and that is how Hearst found out about all of this Rosebud business.

Why Mank would want to do this is anyone's guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welles did not want to use Rosebud in the film. To him it was a device to tie the film together - Kane's loss of childhood and innocence. He and everyone involved knew about the reference to Marion.

Kane died with Rosebud on his lips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to "Sprocket_Man, the stuff I wrote about Rosebud was just a guess on my part about what was cut from the film. And whatever "Rosebud" meant to Hearst is immaterial to probably one of the most recognized words in film history.

 

And to MontyC, I have a biography of Orson Welles titled "Rosebud" written by David Thomson. I am embarrassed to say that I read the first part of the book and found that it was not an easy read. Anyway, I got distracted, started another book and never read any more of it. After I read your posting, I started reading the part about Citizen Kane. The theory in this book says that the "Rosebud" idea did indeed come from Mankiewicz. As late as 1989, Gore Vidal declared that the information came from Charles Lederer. Lederer was a screenwriter and was a nephew of Davies, "a frequent guest at San Simeon, and a good friend of Mankiewicz's," This book also suggests that "rosebud" was some part of Orson Welles's sexual fancy.(???) In fact, Mankiewicz suppposedly came up with the ideal of the making a movie about Hearst. Then he and Welles worked out the whole story!

 

This book also states that it was Mankiewicz and John Houseman who wrote the screenplay. And of course Welles as the director of the film, changed things to his liking as he directed it. The way it is described in this book, the whole film was a thrill ride for Welles and Kane was probably as much about Welles as it was Hearst.

 

I have to quit now, as I have to go read more of this book!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing was edited out of “Citizen Kane,” once the finished print was ready for release. If there had been any changes made, Robert Wise, who edited the film would have said it soon enough, before he passed away!! Of course, Hearst did attempt to suppress any distribution of the film. When RKO and its studio head, George Schaefer refused to adhere to the demands of stopping the film’s release, Hearst then pressured MGM’s Louie B. Mayer to intervene. Mayer offer to buy the film from Schaefer or pay its total cost, if Schaefer would agree to destroy the film. Throughout all the years since “Citizen Kane” first appeared, Orson never admitted that the story was pattern after the life of Hearst. No matter how silent Orson remained on this issue, there wasn‘t anybody at the time in Hollywood, ever able to believe the film wasn’t about or based somewhat on Hearst. The issue of whom the film was all about, rested on the shoulders of Herman J. Mankiewicz, since he wrote the original storyline, leading to a first draft of a script. Most fans of "Citizen Kane" are aware that Mankiewicz had known Hearst, through an introduction by fellow screenwriter, Charles Lederer; nephew of Marion Davies. Once Hearst got word that Mankiewicz was involved with the film, this gave him strong reason to be hostile and fearful that the movie was a shadowy reflection of his life!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About “Rosebud” . . . Well, as to what it really represented is centered around what anyone wants to accept or believe, surrounding those various stories, most of which are pretty much hearsay. This rumor of the phrase being related to the genitalia of Marion Davies only began years after many associated to the production were dead. At this point, nothing can be revealed or proved as to whether or not the phrase or word is related to Davies. One story has Mankiewicz and Hearst, terribly drunk after an all night party at San Simeon, leading to Hearst bragging to Mankiewicz about Davies and how erotic she could be. Another tall tale has Charles Lederer as the one passing on all the information to Mankiewicz. Others said it was Charlie Chaplin, who was reputed to have had a long lasting affair with Davies, on and off, while she still continued to hold on to her relationship with Hearst. There are all sorts of possibilities to this situation, but again, nothing concrete will ever shed any light as to what are the real facts behind this “Rosebud” phrase.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If anything can be said about “Rosebud,” it was the total invention of Mankiewicz, written into his original first treatment of the script. He based the whole ordeal of the sled on an object he once cherished, believed to be a bicycle. The first half of the film, is actually more related to the personal childhood of Orson and it’s probably in this area where Orson gave his best contribution to the original storyline as it was first written by Mankiewicz. Once the character of “Charles Foster Kane” becomes an adult, most of this area is covered by what Mankiewicz knew about Hearst. So, from a deep level of observation, the origin of the phrase “Rosebud” doesn’t really matter, since the situation relates more to a symbolic Freudian issue. Anything said that’s associated to Davies and “Rosebud” just adds more fuel to the intriguing aura of the whole “Citizen Kane” cult and it’s a very, very big one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that I found fascinating was that almost all the people involved were actually thrilled to be working on this film with Orson Welles. Welles had rocked the studio system world with his Mercury Radio Broadcasts. With the exception of RKO, the studios thought Welles was mad and didn't want to invest in any of his wild schemes. But there were lots of studio employees that wanted to participate in the innovative Welles' projects. Many thought him to be a genius, a mad genius, but that creative madness was what made Kane the film it was. And from everything that I have read, Citizen Kane was just as much about Welles as it was about Hearst.

 

Two other people that should be given ample credit of the film's genius are Greg Toland and Bernard Herrmann. Greg Toland was responsible for the atmospheric cinematography that truly disguished this film as something different than anything else that ever had been presented on film. And of course, Bernard Herrmann' s score defied the fixed limits of movie music with his "symphonics ranging from brooding to hopeful that fits a large imagination and a tragic hero." Herrmann said that Welles was the most sophisticated director he ever worked with.

 

Welles was at times a joy to work with and at times, a tyrant. Most admit that they would be ready to quite, then Welles would come up with another idea that was so ingenius that they couldn't wait to work it out.

 

So whether it was Mankiewicz, Wise, Lederer, Hearst, or Orson Welles who created "Rosebud", it was just a tag line as MovieProfessor stated, that added to the aura of the Citizen Kane cult. Perhaps you could say that Rosebud was Kane's "MacGuffin".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So whether it was Mankiewicz, Wise, Lederer, Hearst, or Orson Welles who created "Rosebud", it was just a tag line as MovieProfessor stated, that added to the aura of the Citizen Kane cult. Perhaps you could say that Rosebud was Kane's "MacGuffin".

 

 

I would have to agree with you.

Thanks for your extensive input on this topic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...