RKO 281 (1999 TV Movie) User Reviews

fascinating film for fans of Welles, who of course will tear it to shreds

[cherold · 8/10 · 9 December 2004]

Very interesting movie about the battle to get Citizen Kane made has carved out a tricky niche for itself; the movie is going to be most interesting to fans of Welles and Kane, and those people are going to have such specific expectations about what the movie should be that they can't be satisfied.

I see a number of reviews here complaining that this movie doesn't show why Kane was a great movie, but that's not the movie that was being made. It is a short movie about a specific struggle, with brief glimpses into the filming, and unless it had been titled, "RKO 281: The Making of Citizen Kane," you can't fault it for not spending an hour on Welles innovations.

The film is entertaining, Schreiber is a good Welles and Malkovitch is also quite good. I note people also complain that the movie isn't all that accurate. I do wish the film had done a better job with Marian Davies, as one hears her described as fantastically charming and loved by Hollywood (it has been said that Welles' flaying of Davies did more to bring out the knives of the Hollywood press than his portrayal of Hearst). But come on, how can one complain about liberties taking with reality in a movie made about Welles, who loved taking liberties with reality?

Glimpses of Greatness, Greed and Grandeur

[alan-trevennor · 7/10 · 21 December 2011]

If you are into vintage movies, vintage America and conspiracy theories, then this is an entertainment for you.

Many other reviews here have outlined the strengths and weaknesses of the film re the truth about the making of Kane, and the relative attributions of credit, blame and opprobrium. I'd like to inject a good word for Roy Scheider's portrayal of RKO boss George Schaefer: His character's struggle to find the right balance between keeping his east coast money men happy, his obvious liking for Welles and the desire to make good movies is very well portrayed.

Something I really enjoyed was the portrayal of Welles' and Mank's visit to the Hearst Castle at San Simeon, California. That is a fascinating place, which saw so many famous and talented people visit during Hearst's time there. There's a movie about the lifetime of that place to be made by someone, though I don't think anyone has ever attempted it? Apparently they didn't use the real location for RKO281 - a lot of it seems to have been done in London. Was that cost, or did the Hearst Castle trustees refuse....? Anyway, if you're up for a good tale woven around some known facts, but not sticking to them too tightly, take the RKO281 ride, you'll have fun. Just don't let it become your true picture of Mr Welles, Mr Hearst or (most of all) Mr Mankiewicz.

I want more from this film!

[YesAlphaDiva · 8 February 2003]

The key to enjoying this film is in being able to divorce yourself from the idea that this is an accurate representation of the making of Citizen Kane. RKO 281 as a stand-alone film is not bad, though the short running time left me feeling like I'd only seen the primary colors of what could've been a rich piece of fiction.

And it does feel more like fiction than truth.

Watching RKO 281 as a Welles enthusiast was a struggle. Welles himself was such a unique *presence*, a magician in more ways than one, and Liev Schreiber just doesn't evoke the god-like charisma and fury that were manifestations of Welles' particular genius. I would've preferred Vincent D'Onofrio (who pulled off an excellent Welles in Ed Wood after only two weeks of preparation) or even Oliver Platt. It is important to get the "character" of Welles RIGHT in a movie about his masterpiece. If RKO 281 failed egregiously on any level, it's this one.

Though this film is about the MAKING of Citizen Kane, it doesn't address why Citizen Kane had such an impact later in its life. We know that Welles had to fight very hard to save his picture against a variety of political agendas. However, a hard-won battle does not a classic film make...on its own. The only clues we get from RKO character Welles are his passionate and other-worldly exclamations along the lines of, "I just KNOW this is the MOMENT for this story!--Everything I AM is in this film!", etc. It's too mystical for me, and I think it does an injustice to the efforts of Welles and his collaborators to suggest that it was simply the luck (and maliciousness towards Hearst) of a spoiled boy wonder that made what is widely considered to be the best movie of all time.

Welles was in a unique position during that era. He had carte blanche in the movie studios--a status unprecedented before or since--and had the means to create his vision fully to his specifications. Getting the picture *released* was nothing short of a miracle, however, and I think it would've been interesting to dive into yet another layer of what Citizen Kane represents: Art for Art's sake. It's heartbreaking to note that Welles' subsequent film The Magnificent Ambersons was butchered beyond recognition by the studio--those who were fortunate enough to view Welles original (and now lost) cut thought that Ambersons was his true masterpiece, that Citizen Kane was merely a warm-up (!!!). Can you just imagine what this man could've accomplished if only...?

Which brings me to William Randolph Hearst. RKO 281 barely scratches the surface of how powerful Hearst was at the time. The residual effects of his attempt to stop Citizen Kane's release were felt by the film industry (and by Welles in particular) for many years after, and I would've liked to see the nature of this confrontation more clearly.

I've often said that Citizen Kane was Orson Welles' bane and salvation, for we see in hindsight that he sacrificed himself (and ultimately his future)

to earn a beautiful and tragic place in cinematic history. Overall, I wanted an edgier, darker, and more complex account of RKO 281. If I remove all pre-conceived notions and expectations, I find that this docudrama is interesting and fun to watch, but ultimately, I cannot help being drawn back to what made this 1999 film possible: the tumultuous triumph of a long-shot movie as envisioned by a temperamental, inexperienced genius. There are many shadowy folds to the real story of Citizen Kane, and RKO 281 feels like a bowl of plastic fruit in comparison.

Two Self-Indulgent Achievers.

[rmax304823 · 7/10 · 17 November 2008]

I'm absolutely sure that this film would be of more interest to film buffs and Welles fans than to the average viewer, although the buffs and fans might find it infuriating at times. The search for purity and perfection is bound to end in failure because, after all, who is pure? And what is perfect? The buffs and fans will probably gnash their teeth over historical inaccuracies and events and conversations that obviously must have been invented. They can join William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles, because Hearst discovered that he didn't exercise pure power and Welles found out that his career was destined to be less than perfect. But the buffs and fans can still rejoice in knowing that they understand a little more than the rest of us about what the hell was going on in Hollywood and the rest of the world in 1940 and 1941.

Taken as just another movie, without reference to historical events, "RKO 281" isn't bad. It's not the best made-for TV movie that HBO has come up with, but it's interesting to get a glimpse into the contrast -- and the similarities -- between Welles, a self-proclaimed genius and novice film maker, and Hearst, the old fuddy duddy who lived with his younger mistress in a castle on a hill on an estate half the size of Rhode Island. One was rich with the ideas and daring of youth. The other was rich, period.

Good performances all around, as far as the principles go. Maybe Melanie Griffith isn't the vivacious and mischievous hostess that Marian Davies was said to have been, but she gets the job done. Liev Schreiber is a passable Welles, though not as handsome to the heterosexual eye as was the 25-year-old prodigy himself. John Cromwell probably gives the best performance as Hearst, the man who owned too much. It's a complex character role, not easy to play. Hearst isn't the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with, but Cromwell manages to make him rather sympathetic at times. John Malkovich is Herman Mankowitz, co-writer of "Citizen Kane," and he's reliable, as always. Too bad they left out the incident at which Mankowitz, drunk, vomited at the dinner table and apologized by saying, "It's alright, Mister Hearst. The white wine came up with the fish." If there's a weak thread running through the story of this battle, it's the script. Sometimes it positively flows, as in Welles' speech to the RKO board in New York. At other times, it seems as if the writer had one eye on a textbook for Screen Writing 101. Why would an American, even a stuffy one, substitute the British "shall" for the red-white-and-blue "will"? Entire conversations sound stilted and aimed at immediate comprehension by the viewer, attempts to spare him the torture of thought.

No, it's not a TV masterpiece, but it's a good job of commercial film making, the kind that HBO can sometimes be very good at. I think most people would find it engaging enough to hold their attention. Especially, as I say, the buffs and fans. I'm not sure about those who might have to stretch in order to grasp the concept of "Hitler" -- never mind "RKO 281".

good, but read up on the true story

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 10 November 2013]

Intended as a feature film with an entirely different cast, RKO 281 is an HBo movie purporting to telling the story of Orson Welles making Citizen Kane.

Obviously because it's a film in a limited time frame, many events had to be simplified and scenes made up. I won't go through everything that is incorrect. Suffice to say the film depended on a lot of urban legend and rumors rather than real facts.

Citizen Kane was supposedly the story of the newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst. Welles (Liev Schreiber) vehemently denied this at the time. No one knows what was in his mind because he had absolutely no choice but to deny it, whether or not it was true. Hearst, here played by James Cromwell, wants the film suppressed. By having Louella Parsons make inflammatory comments about the moguls in his paper, they were soon ready to buy the film from RKO and destroy it. Free speech won, but Hearst refused to have any of his papers publicize Kane, advertise it, or review it.

What hurt Hearst most of all was that the role of Susan Alexander, supposedly based on Marion Davies (Melanie Griffith), was an alcoholic. He told someone (this wasn't in this movie) that what crushed him was "the drinking." The film did hurt the image of Marion Davies - for years many believed she was a no-talent drunk whose career was totally because she was the mistress of a powerful man.

In truth, something else not mentioned in this movie, is that there were two moguls who had done something similar as Kane did in the film. Samuel Insull built the Chicago Opera House, and a tycoon named Harold Fowler McCormick promoted the opera career of his second wife. This suggests that Kane was, in fact, a combination of men. Marion Davies was a talented comedienne. She truly loved Hearst and when he hit bottom, she was there with financial and emotional support. And rather than help her career, he hurt it due to the types of roles he wanted her to play, and she retired from films in 1937.

As far as the background squabbles, these were complicated. The actors, Richard Dreyfuss as George Schaefer, John Malkovich as Herman Mankiewicz, David Suchet as Louis B. Mayer, Liam Cunningham as Gregg Toland, were all marvelous.

Melanie Griffith I feel was miscast, coming off like a bimbo, which I don't think Davies was; and how anyone could cast Anastasia Hille as Carole Lombard is beyond me. Wrong.

And Rosebud? It seems odd, but not impossible, I suppose, that someone knew Hearst's pet name for part of Davies' anatomy. But since the early story of Kane is actually closer to the story of Herman Mankiewicz's childhood, and since Welles denied that the film was about Kane, why put something so obvious in the film? No one will ever know, but needless to say, that story spread like wildfire.

Liev Schreiber is excellent as Welles - no one was cast to look like the characters they played -- but I question the characterization of Welles in the script as a man afraid of being exposed as a fraud and not a boy wonder. He was coming off of huge success in New York and great notoriety with War of the Worlds. He was 25 years old. Twenty-five year-olds are invincible, immortal - the world hasn't had its way with them yet. Welles was a supremely confident young man and probably arrogant to boot, sleeping with the gorgeous Delores del Rio and having carte blanche at RKO. I don't buy any insecurity.

Nevertheless, I found this movie very entertaining and extremely well acted, and it gives some insight about how the powerful Hearst attempted to manipulate his world via the press.

Citizen Where/How

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 28 October 2020]

Another reviewer already stated it very nicely. To enjoy this, you have to detach from thinking this is close to the truth. This is a dramatization and it is meant to tickle you, to tell a story. Sort of something Orson Welles liked to do. It is still based on certain things that happened while he tried making this major movie - for some even the best movie ever made. Whatever you think of Citizen Kane, you can't deny it's technical progress and thinking - how Welles used so many things to make a drama that touches on so many things.

Liev Schreiber is doing a fine job overall, though some might feel he could have been ... I guess crazier in his depiction. But we are supposed to root for our main character, so there goes that. Overall the acting is more than decent - especially for TV movies of that era. So if you are looking for light entertainment and are not up for the "real" documentary (which is Battle for Citizen Kane, which was an episode of a show), this will be more than fine enough a watch. If you are already aware of certain things it might help enjoy the movie - but as I initially said, you may also be annoyed by what the movie chooeses to show. Drama will be drama .. you need a bit of suspense sometimes

The Kane Mutiny ...

[majikstl · 10/10 · 13 June 2005]

The most remarkable thing about RKO 281 (subtitled "The Battle Over Citizen Kane") is that not only is it sympathetic to William Randolph Hearst and his paramour Marian Davies, but it also paints a less then flattering picture of film icon Orson Welles.

Every film buff worth his popcorn knows, or at least should know, the legend of CITIZEN KANE: Welles, the brilliant, but naive Boy Wonder, takes Hollywood by storm with his amazing and groundbreaking first picture, but falls victim to the tyranny of the cruel, thin-skinned billionaire Hearst, who tries to destroy the brilliant work of art. It is the David and Goliath saga of Tinseltown, with an art triumphs over commerce subtext. But the makers of this made-for-cable drama have opted to pull a switcheroo. Just as Welles bravely (or foolishly) challenged the legendary tycoon Hearst, RKO 281 rather courageously takes on the Welles legacy of the misunderstood genius. The results are gratifying, though the facts end up blurred all the more.

If there is, indeed, a villain in the whole CITIZEN KANE affair it would be screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (played here by John Malkovich), who acted as Judas to W.R. and Marian, while serving as Iago to Welles's Othello. It was, according to historians, Mankiewicz who took a catalogue of firsthand observations and casual gossip gathered as a favored houseguest of the Hearst household and fashioned it into an unauthorized biography/screenplay. And it was Mankiewicz who goaded Welles to flirt with professional suicide by pursuing the project in the first place and by changing a film about a generic millionaire into a tale rife with details specific to Hearst.

But RKO 281 ventures a different theory, suggesting that Welles devised KANE as an elaborate weapon of revenge against Hearst for having been insulted at a dinner party. One suspects that Welles' crime was more one of clueless indifference than vengeance, but the latter does make the film more dramatically provocative. Whatever the case, Welles clearly bit off a much bigger bite than he anticipated when he deemed Hearst's personal life fair game.

Ironically, Welles' folly may not have been his audacity to attack Hearst, who surely faced greater critics, so much as the director's unintended assault on innocent bystander Davies. What RKO 281 highlights is that much of Hearst's ire against KANE was based to his desire to protect Davies from an unflattering portrayal and public scandal; not an unfounded fear, it would appear. In KANE, Hearst is presented in a mostly sympathetic light, and it is Davies who comes off the worst. Indeed, her alter ego, Susan Alexander is the film's least likable and empathetic character, an exceedingly dumb blonde who evolves into a shrieking, untalented alcoholic has-been diva. No other character in the film is as cruelly one-dimensional. Ironically, it may have been Mankiewicz's gallant, albeit foolish, attempt to protect his friend Davies, that caused all the problems. By making Susan so extremely different from the much beloved Davies, Mankiewicz may have thought people would see Alexander as a pure fiction. But such is the power and fame of KANE that then and future generations were destined to accept the legend over the reality and assume that Susan and Marian are one in the same. (Further irony: RKO 281 finds Marian played by a very Susan Alexander-like Melanie Griffith.)

Though the film notes the irony of the muckraker publisher suddenly finding himself the victim of the type of tabloid journalism that made him famous, RKO 281 is mostly sympathetic to Marian and W.R., who are seen as the ones under attack. As played by Liev Schreiber, Welles is the film's villain, who, filled with arrogance and ambition, sweeps into town with an itch to make a reputation for himself and a willingness to exploit others to do so. His petty, pseudo-socialist rantings about the evils of the very rich seem hollow in light of his ambitious desire to exploit others fame and reputation to make a name for himself. It is a different, unflattering side of Welles, who is usually seen as the perpetually embattled artist.

Yet, the plot takes another twist. Welles discovers that Hearst in particular and Hollywood in general weren't willing to just kowtow to his genius and like George Amberson Minafer in his THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, The Boy Wonder gets his comeuppance. Welles becomes just as much the victim of his arrogance as RKO, Hearst, Davies and Mankiewicz.

RKO 281 is a slick and entertaining effort, but it does miss a golden opportunity. The film would have been so much better had it invented its own "Rosebud" to search for and imitated CITIZEN KANE's ambitious visual style and confessional mock-documentary narrative drive. RKO 281 is a very conventional movie about a very unconventional film.

fascinating movie history

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 3 May 2015]

Orson Welles (Liev Schreiber) comes to Hollywood at 24 hailed as a boy genius after 'World of the Worlds'. He is struggling to come up with his first feature film with RKO studio head George Schaefer (Roy Scheider) and screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (John Malkovich). He goes to a dinner party hosted by William Randolph Hearst (James Cromwell) and Marion Davies (Melanie Griffith) at Hearst Castle. He creates 'Citizen Kane'. Hearst aims to destroy the movie. This is a fascinating subject for a TV movie. Schreiber is great and quite frankly, so is everybody else in this movie. I just find it so interesting as a film fan to see an interpretation of the behind-the-scenes story.

entertaining, but seems too simple

[hbs · 8/10 · 2 October 2001]

I didn't know the history of the making of Citizen Kane, and while I enjoyed this movie quite a bit, I still doubt that I know much about it. The movie is attractive, I imagine that it's more or less factually correct, and the cast is generally good, but it doesn't feel "real". Hardly anything is ever as black and white as most of the movie, and even more to the point, the character doesn't manage to capture any of the "zing" that Wells had even as an old man. It's fun, but don't expect too much...

Interesting but miscast

[mr_walsh · 6/10 · 4 November 2000]

I know emulating Welles presents a major challenge for an actor, and Shreiber did somewhat resemble his voice, but the wit, energy, determination and confidence which to me represent Welles just didn't shine through. Casting Roy Sheider was a mistake too; he plays a good humanitarian not a shrewd Hollywood mogul.

On the plus side, the historical tidbits and re-creation of the Citizen Kane sets held my interest - though I wish more coverage of the latter had been included. And of course I love to lose myself in those wonderful art deco interiors and WWII era music.

An Excellent Fictional Version Of The Battle Over Citizen Kane

[timdalton007 · 9/10 · 1 March 2008]

The battle between William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles over the latter's classic film Citizen Kane is the stuff that film history legends are made of. And after the amazing PBS documentary on it, it doesn't seem surprising that a film version would follow it. Though this film isn't a documentary and plays many things differently then they really happened, RKO 281 is an excellent film.

The cast is first rate from Liev Schreiber's Orson Welles onwards. Schreiber might not do Welles distinct voice, but he captures the arrogance and genies of the young man. James Cromwell brings both menace and sympathy to William Randolph Hearst and for the two scenes in the film when these two are together you can feel the tension.

The rest of the cast is just as superb. Of special mention is Melanie Griffith's performance as Marion Davies, the unfortunate victim of Citizen Kane and who becomes the reason for the battle over the film. John Malkovich, Brenda Blethyn, and the late Roy Scheider bring flesh and blood to these long dead members of the battle (writer Herman J. Mankiewicz, columnist Louella Parsons, and RKO executive George Schaefer).

The production is a lavish one. The filmmakers take you to San Simon (aka Hearst Castle), the RKO sets for the film, the boardrooms of Hollwood and New York, and the homes of those involved. The effect is giving the viewer a sense of being there as film history happens. It's not of course but one gets that feeling.

And now for the writing. The film is not, and does not claim to be, a documentary though it is based on the excellent PBS documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane. The events seen in the film are a mix of fact and fiction. The opening dinner party scene is questionable and the apparent motive for Welles to do the film is likely fictional. But many of the details and even chunks of dialog are real or based on real events. Indeed the final third of the film (apparently) happened almost exactly as it is seen in the film. While some might argue over this, it works in the context of the film.

In short RKO 281 is fiction based on fact. From the strong performances to the lavish production values, the fiction gives the viewer a new light on the legendary battle over a classic film and how it almost never made it to the public. If you're a fan of Welles or Citizen Kane, this is a must see. If not, prepare for a journey into the battle over Citizen Kane and how it almost brought down the film industry.

for those who like Citizen Kane

[knarlysheila · 7/10 · 24 March 2003]

This film is the story of how Citizen Kane was made. There was much controversy over the production of the movie and its release in 1941. Citizen Kane is based on the life of William Hearst, publishing mogul. The intimate details of his life were showcased by Orson Welles, the director. RKO 281 follows Welles (Liev Schreiber) and his writing partner Herman Mankiewicz (John Malkovich) as they struggle to make their movie. It also follows Hearst (James Cromwell) and his lady friend Marion (Melanie Griffith) as their financial situation dwindles and the release of the film approaches. Orson Welles has some nerve making Citizen Kane as some will say, and others would suggest that it is a masterpiece. The controversy over the film is well presented. The viewer sees both Welles's side and Hearst's objections. The audience is able to see just how personal the film is to Hearst's life. I know I would object if someone threw my life on the screen for everyone to see, especially the comprimising stuff. Welle's justification for this was that Hearst has a monopoly over the newspaper business, and uses those newspapers to promote his own political beliefs. It was well know during this time that Hearst was not just a business man, but a politician, and a corupt one at that. Welles wanted the world to see Hearst for who he was, and what he was actually doing behind closed doors. RKO 281 gets to the root of this, and to the emotions felt by both Hearst and Marion with the making of the movie. An interesting film that goes along with both RKO 281 and Citizen Kane is The Cats Meow (director, Peter Bogdanovich, 2001). This film tells the semi-true story of a murder that took place at a gathering on William Hearsts Yacht in 1924. This film shows how powerful Hearst was, for the murder was covered up and never to be spoken of again, on Hearst's orders. These two movies give us some insight into the life of a very powerful publisher, and they do compliment each other. However, in RKO 281 we do not see the realtionship between Hearst and Welles, and what history drives Weles to make Citizen Kane. Of course he does give some reasons, like to give Hearst what he deserves, but why there is animosity between the two goes largely untouched. I also found it interesting that Welles's friend, Mankiewicz, who actually colected the information on Hearst's life and wrote much of the script for Citizen Kane, was never really given any credit. The boy wonder Welles was given all accolades for his film. RKO 281 shows the viewer the tensions between these two men, which contributed to the making fo the film. Overall, I found this film to be interesting. It was by no means the best I have ever seen, but if one is interested in Welles or Citizen Kane it is a must see.

Orson Welles Lite

[guyb · 3/10 · 5 February 2002]

This movie had a very good cast. However, the story was a very abbreviated light version of the real one. Better to watch the "American Experience (PBS)" documentary included on the DVD of "Citizen Kane." RKO 281 doesn't really show the severity of the impact that Hearst had on Welles and the beginning of the black listing movement. Welles was pretty much destroyed in his tracks by this and that is not shown at all. Looks more like Hearst got the brunt of it.

Good.. could've been much better..

[hrlaser · 3 June 2002]

You've probably read a lot of other comments, so I'll spare you the details of what "RKO 281" is about.. rather, my comments pertain to made-for-HBO films, particularly this one..

HBO's movies always strike me as a cut above the usual made for the small screen fare, but just a notch below being theatrical quality. There's a strange feeling of being manipulated, that I get from almost all their films, especially biopics like this one, "Truman", and their latest "Path To War" which they're running this month. HBO likes to take on monumental, historical characters, like Orson Welles, Harry S Truman, and LBJ, but seems to always surround them with characters who are portrayed as being slightly dumb, and made to look like fools, on purpose. It's as though HBO is telling us to look back into history and laugh at how naive and silly people were in decades past.. look at the dumb clothes they wore, the silly hairstyles, their mannerisms, while at the same time idealizing them..

In these kinds of films, cars are never dirty or dented. People never flub their words when speaking to each other. Homes and offices are always a paragon of cleanliness. Everything looks brand new. Staged. Too perfect.. Okay, perhaps realism is not what we want in our movies.. we live in homes that have dirty dishes in the sink and rumbled towels in the bathroom, and stacks of magazines on the tables.. but there ARE period films in which the "lived in" look IS quite well done.. witness Bob Raefelson's "The Postman Always Rings Twice."

While the set and art direction of "RKO 281" is stunning, everything is beautiful to look at: all the vast, wood-panelled offices of the Hollywood moguls, somehow, everything has an artificial look to it.

And then, there's Liev Schreiber's portrayal of a young Orson Wells.. Again, sometimes HBO can create a convincing lookalike - Gary Sinese as Harry S Truman was right on the money, Michael Gambon as LBJ comes sort of close, but doesn't quite ring true, but Schreiber simply doesn't look or sound anything like Orson Welles did. Welles had a booming baritone voice, an in-your-face style of projecting his words, and a simply riveting screen presence. Schreiber's lack of a jaw, and his delivery simply never convinced me that this man was Orson Welles.. This is not to take away from Schreiber's acting abilities at all.. he was simply the wrong actor for the part. And since he is the centerpiece of the film, the entire film suffers because of his weak Welles clone..

However, "RKO 281" _is_ worth watching, if just for the lush sets and atmospherics, and the far too few glimpses we get of the making of "Citizen Kane." But again, HBO made this film as a drama, not a documentary, and a drama relies on conflict.. and thus the film concentrates on the clash of personalities, not the creation of the best film ever made..

Wait 'til you hear what Rosebud was...

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 22 May 2006]

OK, so we all know that "Citizen Kane" was probably the all-time #1 masterpiece. Not as many people know that William Randolph Hearst tried to have the movie destroyed. "RKO 281" does a really good job telling that story. I will admit that Liev Schreiber seems to be overacting a little bit as Orson Welles, but he still does a good job in the role. Hearst (James Cromwell) is actually the most intriguing character in the movie: we see how this hypocrite did business with Hitler, sought to discredit FDR (believing the 33rd president to be a Bolshevik), and had a half-his-age mistress in Marion Davies (Melanie Griffith). In my opinion, Hearst had no good qualities.

All in all, the movie's quite interesting, and I don't just mean as a part of cinematic history. What it portrays is part of Americana. Also starring John Malkovich, Brenda Blethyn and Roy Scheider.

great work, as a TV movie- sturdy cast, not too un-realistic drama

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 30 July 2005]

The story of RKO 281 would be even more incredible to me, as one who considers Citizen Kane (the film that this film is mostly about), if not for seeing the documentary "The Battle over Citizen Kane". That documentary not only covers the 'battle' that ensued over William Randolph Hearst and Orson Welles over the film and if it would even see the light of day, but also their histories, which makes for a lot of interesting viewing. So, the dramatization does leave some things out on that end, however the filmmakers make up for it with a compelling re-telling of events (if some of them are loosely based on or made up from the original facts, that's forgivable), and a really good cast at the helm.

The most crucial things on the outset with a film like this, therefore, are making sure the actors who fit into Welles, Hearst, and also others in the story like co-screenwriter of 'Kane', Herman Manciewicz, and Heart's lover, are portrayed with enough believability. Here we get Liev Schrieber in Welles, James Cromwell as Hearst, John Malkovich as 'Mank', and Melanie Griffith, and they're all terrific in the roles, all disappearing into their characters. Schieber especially was convincing in the legendary Mercury theater man, able to express his strengths, his weaknesses, his outbursts, and his passions just right. On the flip-side, Cromwell knew every step of how to play Hearst, this cold, ridiculously wealthy giant who ruled over his lover and anything his reach could touch. Malkovich, as well, is great as always.

The style of the film is fairly basic, but it is intriguing how the director Benjamin Ross and screenwriter John (The Aviator) Logan work out the story logistics. The first half is all about the making of 'Kane', the struggles of the collaboration of the screenwriters, the obsessiveness to perfection that Welles had in production. Then it moves to the second half, which brings the greater conflict- how did this film, which was "loosely based" on the bits and pieces of life in Hearst's life, get to the screen in 1941? The details behind it won't be of any surprise to those who know the story, but to those who don't it becomes a fascinating tale of conflict, loss, and pride over an art form. In fact, as a TV movie (not to downgrade television) it works very well, far deserving of the awards it received. As pure cinema, it is a little pale at times, and reaches for the drama as much as Welles did. Overall, it is definitely worth a look if you're a fan of the film, or if you're not.

Good stuff for movie buffs.

[=G= · 7/10 · 28 April 2001]

Not unlike "Citizen Kane", "RKO 281" received only nominal public appreciation in its day. However, "Citizen Kane", at this writing and some 60 years after its premier, is in no less than fourth place on IMDB.com's Top 250 list of movies of all time. Although it's not likely that history will regard "RKO 281" as kindly as the film it tells about, it does answer the question so many young people may have: What's all the fuss about this old movie which isn't even in color?

"RKO 281" is about the making of "Citizen Kane", a film which biographs a character thought to be William Randolph Hearst of publishing fame. As the story goes, WR Hearst saw himself on screen, realized how much he did not like himself, and then waged war on the Hollywood studios. A war which was essentially a war of ego between two men. A good quality made-for-tv flick with an excellent cast, "RKO 281" puts Orson Welles and his pet project in perspective while delivering one subtle message: As with all things, it is not people which make greatness as much as it is circumstance.

strong lead performances make RKO quite good

[PAULA-MEEHAN · 8/10 · 18 January 2005]

i really liked this movie, even the bits with Melanie Griffith's which is something. I appreciate that people who are familiar with wells work might be a little bit more critical of the piece but i thought it was super. Liev Screiber was outstanding in the lead because he chose to play Wells as a man as opposed to simply doing an impression of an already famous face. He made Wells sympathetic and compelling even though lets face it, as the movie presents it hes not really that likable a man. Id definitely recommend it to any Liev Schreiber fans. Hearst is also presented as an unlikeable character, but Cromwell plays him with great dignity that you almost feel sorry for him.

Not really great as a movie, since it doesn't really tell a story.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 6/10 · 16 May 2009]

This is more of a shot docudrama with big name actors in it, rather than a movie that tells a real story. To me this movie was lacking a bit of a point and it didn't achieved much with its story or characters. It's a quite distant movie in which everything remains on the surface. Questions such as who was Orson Welles, why was he such a genius and how "Citizen Kane" influenced basically all later cinema are hardly being answered or handled at all. As a matter of fact this movie isn't even really about Orson Welles or the shooting of "Citizen Kane" at all. It's more about the battle of getting the movie made and eventually released.

The movie does have some interesting things in it, that explain how "Citizen Kane" got first thought off, what the influences were and how it caused lots of troubles for the persons and studios involved but it does this in such an observe documentary kind of way that you just never feel involved with the story or any of its characters. The movie just doesn't always flow well and it doesn't always know to keep its main focus on the right things.

Of course the movie is not horrible, for a made for TV-production it's simply still a quite good one, with some good production values and a great cast involved.

Unfortunately it's not a really well cast movie. Sure it has big names n it but big names aren't everything. Was Liev Schreiber really the best pick to play Orson Welles? I just don't think so. I like Liev as an actor but more as a supporting actor. Some actors just aren't suitable to play important main leads. He of course also looks very little like Orson Welles. The movie also has further more James Cromwell, John Malkovich, Fiona Shaw and Melanie Griffith but it's perhaps only Roy Scheider who knows to make an great and lasting impression with his role.

Worth a go if you're already a bit familiar with Orson Welles and the movie "Citizen Kane", otherwise this movie will hardly keep your interest throughout with its superficial, more documentary-like, telling of the story

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A good film marred by needless historical inaccuracies.

[mts43 · 8/10 · 10 March 2022]

The screenwriter took a story already rife with drama and added needless events that didn't happen, and this needless meddling will probably lead too many viewers to think that the entire story is a Hollywood concoction. However, from my reading over the years, the sensationalistic tidbit about the meaning of Rosebud is true. The best performance in the film is by Melanie Griffith as Marion Davies. While John Malkovich is also very good, the fact that he looks nothing like Herman Manckiewicz is distracting. But Hearst was as bad as portrayed by James Cromwell, and the two talentless harpies Louella Parsons and Hedda Hopper were just as hideous as they are portrayed.

Citizen Hearst

[esteban1747 · 7/10 · 17 May 2012]

Good to know part of the story of how "Citizen Kane (Hearst)" was made. In his first years as an actor/director Welles was a rebel, who did not want to follow what already was available in Hollywood. He wanted something new, critics to the society where he lived, films about how people behave, particularly those extremely wealthy. The films of Welles as an actor/director can be well compared to the novels written by Theodore Dreiser. His films were different and deep in their content and messages if compared with the existing previous ones. It is clear that making "Citizen Kane" was not an easy task for Welles and all of his collaborators. Obstacles were so many, and its final presentation was a real odyssey. This material does not show much details about how it was made, i.e. something about the main heroes, such as Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten), Kane's family and others. Liev Schreiber, who has no the paunch of Welles, was able to have a nice performance as the famous actor. Good acting of John Malkovich, as usual, but much more impressive was the acting of Roy Scheider as George Schaefer, the man providing funds for this achievement.

Never really understood the extent of Hearst's reach before now

[AlabamaWorley1971 · 8/10 · 21 November 1999]

After seeing this film, the sheer impudence of what Welles was trying to do with CITIZEN KANE really shines through. It really was a world where one powerful man could affect the careers of everybody in Hollywood!

Liev Schreiber is terrific; he doesn't look like Welles, but he really sounds like him. He's very good as the possessed obsessed genius totally devoted to his film's vision. James Cromwell is suitably frightening as the multimillionaire. I even liked Melanie Griffith as Marion Davies (the real life version of KANE's Susan Alexander). The scenes shot in San Simeon are wonderful.

Printing The Legend

[slokes · 6/10 · 11 April 2013]

The myth of "Citizen Kane" outruns the reality in this snazzy, highly fictionalized presentation of the origination of, and subsequent fallout from, Orson Welles' cinematic triumph.

When we first see young Orson, he is lighting his own birthday candle, at a party consisting of himself and his bedridden mother. "You were made for the light," she tells him. Becoming a young man, Welles (Liev Schreiber) lands in Hollywood with a film contract and a reputation as a "boy genius" with no film to his credit. Orson casts about for a film to launch him properly, and finds it at the mansion of the crusty plutocratic publisher William Randolph Hearst (James Cromwell) and his mistress Marion Davies (Melanie Griffith).

Welles played fast and loose with the truth in his lifetime. So does "RKO 281." In "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," director John Ford famously had a scene where the facts of a case are disregarded so a newspaper can "print the legend." Welles was a student of Ford's, as "RKO 281" reminds us, and we get similarly legendary moments here presented as life.

Welles and Hearst clash memorably in a couple of chance meetings. Hollywood executives are threatened by Hearst into trying to buy "Citizen Kane" in order to destroy it unseen. The mysterious death of Thomas Ince is revealed to be a murder showing the extent of Hearst's dangerousness and pull.

All of this is at best speculation and more likely hyperbole of the kind that Welles himself trafficked. "RKO 281" thus obscures the real historic record, but director Benjamin Ross and writer John Logan do so with a verve that makes it work. "Take my hand, Menk," we hear Welles tell screenwriter Joseph Menkiewicz (John Malkovich), just after pushing the guy into a pool. "We'll make history!"

Schreiber doesn't look or sound much like Welles, but he has the right presence for the role and I enjoyed his performance. Nobody really convinces, yet everyone does well with their off-center parts, especially Griffith. She has the toughest role, playing Davies in the same brassy way Dorothy Comingore portrayed her counterpart Susan Alexander in "Citizen Kane" but as a completely different person than Susan Alexander was, someone who is sincerely devoted to her rich lover. Also ironic is Cromwell, effectively nasty yet more sympathetic as a foil than Welles is as protagonist. In a film celebrating Welles' genius, it's notable the uptight Hearst gets the better of Welles in their exchanges.

"Men like Hearst don't love," Welles sneers, blind to the fact its Hearst's love for Davies rather than his pride in his wealth and fame that fuels the old man's rage against his picture.

I enjoyed the way "RKO 281" plays with your rooting interest and sends up the old-Hollywood style of Welles' day. It doesn't feel real, but it entertains, and at 90 minutes doesn't waste your time about it. That's the kind of Hollywood production everyone can enjoy.

Not the movie it should have been...

[J. Michael Pence · 5/10 · 21 November 1999]

RKO 281 is based on the making of Orson Welles's masterpiece, Citizen Kane, but unlike the movie it portrays, RKO 281 lacks Welles's fiery signature of creativity. The movie itself is well-filmed, with elaborate backdrops and a captivating depth of the 30's period in which it was shot. However, the plot outside this remarkable backdrop, is sadly quite shallow.

Outside of the obvious battle between Welles (played by Liev Schrieber) and media magnate William Randolph Hearst (played by James Cromwell), we have no sense of any underlying motivation for the story. This is pretty sad considering the film they wished to portray was none other than one of the greatest films of alltime, setting many of the technical standards used today. Indeed, the viewer is given little more than a fleeting glimpse of Citizen Kane's production, and only a few of the most blindingly obvious innovations in the film (such as slanted camera angles). The disturbing part of these remarkably few revelations is that they come after 50 minutes of a historically unrelenting plot outlining everything from the land-lease law to Hollywood gossip rags of the 30's. I also found it odd that they never mentioned that Citizen Kane was booed at the 1941 Oscars, of which most he was snubbed.

The black-and-white confrontation of the movie is little more than grey-and-grey. Welles apparently doesn't want to make the movie because Kane represents the hollowness of greed, but because he feels that Hearst is a hypocrite. Hearst is not so much egnimatic and soulless as Kane, but more of a helpless withered shadow of a man. This attack of Hearst's character is never truly resolved, because the story never makes it clear that Citizen Kane was based on Hearst, but isn't about Hearst.

Sadly, there is one more note I wish to add. The actors in this movie seemed like 8th graders forced into a Shakespearian play, they either misunderstood the meaning of this picture, or failed to connect emotionally. As Shakespeare in Love taught us, even the Bard's works can be made interesting with the right mindset. This could have been a great movie, but fell far short.