(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 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. Another problem: Kael's approach throughout the essay is to disassemble the film and source each piece. We can only consider this a confession of error. She never replied, and she never wrote another long researched essay on a classic film. The critics cast considerable doubt on Kael's accuracy in this and other statements. 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. Over the years, though, I've developed mixed feelings about it. I've revisited it countless times since it was published in 1971. "Raising Kane" is one of the most enjoyable pieces of nonfiction I've ever read.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |