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.
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.