This movie was actually pretty interesting. I saw it on HBO one day and wasn't to sure if it was worth watching. It was a lot better than I thought. It's one of those movies you wouldn't say would be memorable, but you could probably see it more than once in your life. It's one of those movies where if you were sick in bed, or at home doing nothing all day, you could watch this movie and be thoroughly entertained.
Think for yourself, question authority.
I loved this for two things: how Kirsten Dunst's portraying Marion Davies the right way, and the story is great. This is not a movie just you see once.
shareI really loved this movie, too, and I'm surprised there's not more discussion of it here. I originally rented it to see Eddie Izzard in boy drag for a change <g>, and I thought it was great. You're right; Kirsten Dunst is perfect, much better here than I ever remember seeing her be before. I was sort of nervous about the notion of a romantic relationship between her character and Izzard's just because of the age difference (particularly considering it was a Bogdonovich film), but I think it worked well. They had a lot of chemistry, and they were both very good.
Definitely a repeat-watch for me, too.
I am glad I finally saw a depiction of Marion Davies that wasn't insulting and cruel. After seeing this and researching her, I can see why people despised Orson Welles for portraying her so horribly in Citizen Kane.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Davies probably rejected Welles' suit and was therefore, being punished by him in Kane.
If I had a nickel for every cigarette your mom smoked, I'd be dead.-Donna Hayward
Apparently Orson Welles' rather unflattering portrayal of Marion Davies in Citizen Kane is what might have convinced Hearst to try to make sure Citizen Kane was not released. Citizen Kane wasn't meant to be an exact mirror of Hearst's life though, so Welles had leeway for some poetic licence. (I personally think Citizen Kane is a great movie.)
The 1995 TV documentary "The Battle over Citizen Kane" (which included interviews with Peter Bogdanovich, the director of The Cats Meow) showed how Marion Davies was nothing like Susan, her alter-ego in Citizen Kane. (Hearst did seem as despicable as Kane though, possibly even more despicable). In particular it showed that she was a talented comedy actress, but Hearst insisted she do dramatic roles, a fact which is alluded to in The Cat's Meow. Footage of some of Davies' comedy roles were included in the documentary and she certainly could have been a female Charlie Chaplin, as The Cat's Meow suggests. Kirsten Dunst captured this comedic quality perfectly, doing great justice to Marion Davies. Great acting by Dunst, and great idea to cast her in the role. The role fitted her like a glove.
"The Battle over Citizen Kane" is included as a second disc in the Citizen Kane Collectors Edition DVD.
I doubt Orson Welles portrayed Marion Davies so badly in Citizen Kane because she allegedly rejected his advances. It is unlikely he even met her. When Welles arrived in Hollywood, less than two years before he did Citizen Kane, he was only about 23 or 24 years old, Davies was 41 or 42 at the time, and they certainly moved in different social circles. In addition, the documentary didn't suggest his portrayal of her was due to the reasons you suggested, and it did cover most of the theories and gossip involved in Citizen Kane.
And to get back to the original message in this thread, yes, pretty good movie. Character-development is good, and the fact that some of the characters are fairly famous adds some spice; the Agatha Christie-type mystery feel to it; the bitter-sweet relationship between Charlie Chaplin and Marion Davies; the thought that this could be a true story adds a sense of history, and shock that Hearst got away with it; and, above all, the great acting of Kirsten Dunst.
Like a bird on the wire, like a drunk in a midnight choir, I have tried in my way to be free
This was a pretty good movie. I just happened to catch it on HBO one day when I saw that Kirsten Dunst was in it. I had NO idea that Eddie Izzard was Charlie Chaplin!! It was before I knew who Eddie Izzard was and I noticed his picture on the cover at the video store the other day! I didn't catch Izzard until New Years Eve 2003. The Dressed to Kill show on HBO. I used to think the Chaplin actor was cute and now I know why!
"Dogs barking, Can't fly w/o umbrella."
"In dreams we enter a world that's entirely our own."
While Welles' portrait of Marion/Susan is unfair, there is evidence that Welles was more sensitive to Hearst than many believe. Recall that the original screenplay for the movie was by Herman Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz had a self-destructive streak and a nasty habit of slapping people he either envied or who helped him. He probably created the vicious caracature of Marion in the screenplay. He also included a nasty reference (and sequence) to the Ince mystery in the original screenplay. When Susan is talking to the reporter in CITIZEN KANE she refers him to Raymond the butler at Xanadu. Her quote (still in the film) is "He knows where all the bodies are buried". But in the original screenplay, when Raymond is interviewed he tells of how Kane does commit a murder (like the supposed death of Thomas Ince). Welles, when rewriting and editing the final screenplay, through out the murder story (as well as an earlier bit concerning the breach between Kane and his first wife Emily, and how he inadvertantly caused the assassination of her uncle John, the President of the U.S seen in the movie's fake documentary - Hearst was blamed for William McKinley's assassination for publishing a quadrain about political murder written by Ambrose Bierce).
shareGrantss-
I agree! Great stuff, indeed! It was also nice to see the "perky" Marion Davies played as a fun-loving hostess, instead of an airhead ding-bat(sometimes viewers confuse "energetic" with "stupid".) Marion's abilities were comedic--a complex form of entertainment that requires a clever player.
It was also nice to see a Charlie Chaplin in "real guy" mode, vs. his onscreen comedic persona. This movie was better than I expected to--not for lack of talent, just lack of exposure (even amongst indie circles).
Was pretty surprised about this movie as well. I remember when it first came out in theatres and not really interested in seeing it, but now that I caught it on cable, I'm kicking myself for not seeing it sooner. I bet Orson Wells is doing a little dance right now that this movie brings to light a rumored murder. Iliked the costumes and the actors, seemed like it was a lot of fun, well except for the murder. Overall, I think you get a real sense of how Hollywood was back then, a lot of hush hush business behind close doors and those girls who played the wild flappers were just too funny.
shareI was pleasantly surprised by this as well. Good performances, production design, costumes and storyline. It's a period I'm interested in but know very little about so this was an eye-opener even if the story isn't all true.
shareIt was great when it came out because Bogdanovich had made a (theatrical)feature film in eight years, and when it actually was a great movie, it shows that the great man still has it.
shareI just saw this movie. I really enjoyed it.
I feel like Bogdanovich righted the wrong that Orson Wells admitted to have done to Marion Davies in Citizen Kane. But at the same time, this movie is infinitely more damaging to Hearst than Kane could have ever been.
I'm surprised there's not more discussion of it here
The scene where Hearst pulled the chair out from under "that guy", he did so because that "guy" made a fortune playing characters that endured these types of humorous pratfalls. That "guy", was Charley Chaplin.
I never knew Hearst, so I can't say if Herrmann's portrayal was on target or not. But I'd bet it was close. I thought Hermann's acting was very good, given the character he was playing was a complex, megalomaniac.
I enjoyed the film.
That "guy", was Charley Chaplin.
I thought Hermann's acting was very good,
That "guy", was Charley Chaplin.
And is this REALLY supposed to make a difference?
Very true. I first saw it some time back (probably in HBO too) and I never forgot it, particularly the scenes of Dunst sitting in the staircase and the guests dancing at the end of the film. It's one of those films that aren't particular standouts, like Lost in Translation, but once seen stay with you for good.
After all... tomorrow is another day.
I would give it a 6, I have read and seen documentaries regarding Ince's death for a few years now. I did not know Louella Parsons was a guest. Generally I like period themed movies. The wardrobe is spot on.
share