Touches You

Fantastic!

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The idea of a battle behind "Citizen Kane" is a fascinating story unto itself, so a movie about such a subject seems like a no-brainer, TV-made or otherwise. And "RKO 281" fills that need fairly well. It's an HBO movie, so we're not demanding accuracy here, and as such, it mostly succeeds. Oddly enough, the movie's at its most entertaining in the first half, as Welles contemplates his big Hollywood move, and during the actual filming. It tends to meander once the film's in the can and the war with Hearst actually gets underway. But it also manages to extract some sympathy for Hearst and Davies. The closing shot of the couple slow-dancing in the empty castle was a soft touch.Also, as well as the actors are in their roles, I wanted to see more from Herman Mankiewicz. His relationship with Welles is enough for its own movie, but the Malkovich scenes are my favorites.6/10

"RKO 281" is an HBO film about the controversy surrounding young Orson Welles' first, and, according to the American Film Institute, greatest work, "Citizen Kane". While it's not necessary to see Kane first, I'll warn you there's a quick line of dialogue near the end where Mankowitz (John Malkovich) spoils the big Kane secret, the meaning of "rosebud" in the film, so it's probably best to see Kane beforehand.Human beings fall into one of 4 categories:(1) those who hate "Citizen Kane"(2) those who aren't familiar with "Citizen Kane"(3) those who have casually seen it once or twice(4) those who have seen it so many times that instead of singing in the shower they find themselves quoting: "Sing Sing! Do you hear me Gettys?! SING SINGGGG!!!"Shamefully, I fall into a category (4). But I have experienced all the others (1),(2) & (3) at different times in my life."RKO 281" is puzzling because I'm not sure which of the 4 categories, if any, it's aimed at. I think it tries to reach all which is an impossibility. It starts with some visual inside jokes for the cat (4) folks. For example: near the beginning there's a brief scene transition which starts on 2 stage hands sitting high up on the rafters as the camera pans down to the stage (a wink at the opera debut scene in "Citizen Kane"). So I began thinking, cool! RKO 281 is for nerds like me!But then it suddenly shifts into a very superficial setup, where for 10-15 minutes Orson Welles and his pal Mankowitz are trying to come up with a subject for the upcoming film. This is geared at the cat (1) folks who don't know what Citizen Kane is about. The problem is it becomes a little tedious for the (2), (3) & (4)'s in the audience who are waiting to get to the "sexual blackmail", "back room dealings" and other thrills promised on the DVD box.The rest of the film progresses in the same way, interspersing a few inside jokes while staying mostly superficial for the sake of the unfamiliar folks. The result, while not being a bad film, is a film that seems inconsistent in tone. Is it holding our hand and leading us through a tour guide's version of Citizen Kane? Or is it pricking us with subtleties, expecting us to read between the lines. I believe, for the most part, it's the guided tour. And I didn't learn anything new except for the hint at anti-Semitism coming from William Randolph Hearst and the reaction from Jewish Hollywood moguls. Nnow, that was interesting, but it didn't seem to tell us the whole story. In fact, all the thrills promised on the DVD box turn out to be a bit of a letdown. The "sexual blackmail" zooms by so fast you'd miss it if you blinked.Still, what would have been a mediocre to sub-par production is uplifted by some tremendous acting. Melanie Griffith brings a fresh degree of humanity to this otherwise cold story about old millionaires. James Cromwell is perfect as Hearst, the cold old millionaire. John Malkovich, playing Welles' drunk sidekick Mankowitz, is always fun to watch. But for my money Liev Schrieber really knocks it out of the park as Orson Welles. He doesn't look much like Welles, but that voice! There are a few moments where you could close your eyes and you'd swear they're dubbing the real one-of-a-kind baritone of the great Orson Welles himself. And that's what kept me watching from start to finish."RKO 281" is not essential viewing. But if you are curious about the phenomenon of "Citizen Kane", then you should definitely see it. Of far more value, however, are the 2 audio commentaries on the Citizen Kane DVD where film critic Roger Ebert & Welles' friend Peter Bogdonovich illuminate the film in a tremendously enlightening way that will not only enhance your enjoyment of Kane, it will make you see cinema in a whole new way.

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".

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.