It’s not as easy to understand how KANE pushed the classic narrative style to its limits (deep focus photography, blocking, lighting, sound, or other aspects of film form) as it is to focus on the plot (Kane = Hearst). The former is why it is significant. Many writers are too lazy to learn the former, while the latter is too easy to rehash. That’s why I am suspicious of writers who harp on Hearst; it usually means they are covering for their lack of knowledge of film techniques. With all the focus on Hearst, the kids in my film history class often wonder why a movie supposedly based on a long-dead millionaire is such a big deal. It’s only after we go through its visual style and narrative structure that they get it.

There’s a point you make that I strongly object to.

But first, I have to tell you that you did another wonderful job. I learned things and, Heck, I have been reading about Welles most of my life. In fact, I didn’t even know about this new movie that Linklater has done.

And from the one film course I took I know all about Kane’s creative use of sound and deep focus, etc.

But I wrote term papers in high school and college on William Randolph Hearst. And, if there is one thing I am pretty sure of it is that the movie intended to portray Hearst, to make people think of Hearst, who was a well known figure in those days.
There’s a lot of Hearst material in the movie. Stealing another paper’s journalists, starting the Spanish American War, the quote about you send the dispatches and I’ll create the war, collecting cultural artifacts, San Simeone, the fortunes of his newspapers – both success and failures, the whole “yellow journalism” attitude about news in those days.
Suzie, I’m not sure the problem is that some writers know little about Kane’s film techniques. I think the problem may be that you know little about Hearst. (And though some may squawk, Pauline Kael pointed out that co-scenarist Herman Mankiewicz, once a journalist, certainly knew about Hearst.)
Here’s what I think. Hearst was chosen as a subject because Welles was thrilled with shocking the world with the Martian radio show. He wanted to cause controversy again. But the heavy hand of Hearst came down and crushed his dreams about Kane. It was not fun this time. Hearst was mean. Unfortunately, many journalists are.

I would be interested in your response to this.

Again, nice job.

I love the fanciful and scary Orson Welles who inhabits the dreamworld of Pauline and Juliet in “Heavenly Creatures”. In their pantheon of cinema gods he is referred to only as “It” — they despise him — and after watching “The Third Man” they are chased through the dark city streets by him. Wonderful sequence!

Such a fascinating man, on or off-screen, eh?

Can’t wait to see “Me and Orson Welles”!