PAUL SALMON

Is Orson WeUes (1992). it does not arise as a subject o( discussion in either

work.

"THE PEOPLE Will THINK ... WHAT I TELL THEM TO THINK-: Orson Welles and the Trailer for

Citizen Kane

Resume: Bien qu'il soit devenu presque impossible de considerer la bande annonce

de Citizen Kane,hors du discours critique qui entoure Ie film et de son statut de chefd'ceuvre ultime du cinema america in. il demeure important de I'examiner en detail

pour com prendre ses strategies rhetoriques manipulatrices. Une lecture attentive de la bande annonce demontre que Welles soul1aitait rejoindre un large public, qu'il oe voulait pas risquer d'aliener les foules et etait ambivalent au 5ujet du caraetffe collectif de cette entreprise artistique.

I

n Citizen Welles, his biography of Orson Welles, Frank Brady begins his brief diSCUSSIon of the trailer for Citizen Kane as follows: A few weeks prior 10 Ihe anticipated opening of Qtizen Kane, RKO released a "Coming Attractions" trailer to promote it. Since the film promised to be unlike any other made in Hollywood. Orson wanted the trailer also to be unlike any other. He spent weeks on scripting. shooting and editing it and emerged with a punchy and intriguing look at the behind-tbe-scenes life of the film. It was a highly effective advertisement and stood out from all the other trailers comiog from Hollywood, clarifying that Q"tizen Kane was going to be something special. Shot as a documeDiary. the trailer was longer than average-it ran five minutes-and ~c;dlowed Done of the rules that most trailers adhered to: a brief synopsis, sensational copy, a glimpse at the most dramatic and acHonpacked scenes.'

Despite the suggestion here of Weliesian authorship in the creation of "something special," the trailer for Citizen Kane is nol a work that has provoked sustained critical attention. It remains absent from the filmographies of all of Welles's biographers (including Brady) and is also not mentioned in Raben Carringer's otherwise indispensable The Making of~Citizen Kane" (1985; rev. ed. 1996). While Ihe trailer is mentioned in Josepb McBride's Orson. WeUes (1972; rev. ed. 1996) and in the exhaustive chronology of his career in Welles's This

CAHADIAN JOURNAl.OF FILM nuOIES' .EVUE CANADIENNE D'hlJDES CINtMATOGRAPHIQUES VOLUME UNO. ::J: • FAll • AUTOMNI :lD06 • pp 16-115

In many ways. critical neglect of the trailer is entirely understandable. Although Brady indicates that Welles shot the trailer as a documentary, a trailer is not originally intended as a work of intrinsic artistic interest. By definition. a trailer is a shon prelude meant to anticipate and advertise a coming mm and is initially intended to functiop in a subordinale role to a primary lext. not as an attraction in its own right. Even today, when preview trailers for current films are not only an inevitable part of the cinema-going experience. but also widely available on the Web. they do not often generate critical commentary in and of themselves.2 Any scholarly altempt to historically recontexrualize the trailer for Qtizen Kane is fraughl with intriguing challenges, many of which concern the apparent absence of any contemporary accounts o( the trailer. How widely was the uailer distributed upon its initial release? What kinds of responses did it provoke among those who had yet to see Citizen Kane? Such questions are probably impossible to answer. aod the trailer must now be looked at thro~gh an historical prism shaped not only by our knowledge of Citizen Kane. but also by the cumulative innu~nce of aJmos~ seven decades of WeUes scholarship. Indeed, it is the very (act of Qcizen Kane's entrenched canonical status lhat tempts us to valorize a text such as this trailer as privileged rather than marginal, as something Wellesian and therefore "special." Something of this attitude of retrospective valorization is implidt in Simon CalIow's discussion of the trailer in Orson Welles: The Road ID XllIUldu: "The trailer... has great playful charm. Welles never appears, but is omnipresent as the narrator: a joke-a rather knowing one-in itself. Shot by Toland at the same time as the film. it is a miniature documentary. almost an introduction to the cinema. in the manner of the opening section of the unfilmed Hean of Darkness. "3 Callow obViously concurs with Brady's assessment of the trailer's originality. and like Brady he is perceptive to the trailer's documentary form. But what. to be precise, does the trailer document? Yes, we are given an introduction to the Mercury Players who occupy major roles in the actual film. The trailer thereby anticipates the coda to Citizen Kane in which the Mercury Players are introduced via clips (rom the film itself. We are also given an introduction to the basic narrative premise of Citizen Kane. but. as I will show, this introduction is more misleading than revealing of the kind of fIlm Kane turos Oul to be. And in Callow's reference to the way in which the trailer constitutes "almost an inmxluction [0 the onema." the word "almost" is telling. If this is an introduction to cinema. it is an introduction to classical Hollywood cinema. not the more subversive stylistics of Citizen Kane. The Welles on display in the making of the trailer is far more the showman who can amaze an audience with dazzling visual and acoustic tricks than the serious anist who might risk challenging an audience's fundamental assumptions about the possibilities of cinematic language.

THE lRAIUR FDa CRQEN KANE 97

The rrailer for Citizoen Kane is no R05e'bud providing solutions to the mys.[ery of \\'eUes's creative personality. But 1t does shed .m intNe5tmg light 0.0 Welles's .lfUSI,c hind al lhe lime. as he courted a wide. popular audience on lhe very eve of sprmging on a largely unsuspt."Cting public the most technIcally and formally advanced (11m in Hollywood, On the eVIdence of the IrailE."r WeU~ per· Ceives hi' audIence in the following (rallkJy p.a.trOlUzmg teons: as qUite passive .and SUbJfCl to mJolpul.ation; as cravlOg novelty, but within definite limits: .15 kt"C'nly int~st(,"t.1 in the person.ality Side of Ihe film busln~: as curious doout character psychology, bw In "er)' simplistic terms; and as havIIl8 a predilection for rodimeonldTV ndITalive puzzles. ,\ioreover, \\~Iles relies heavily in lhe trailer on dudieoce fdSCInation with his own e-stdbh.shro persona, on(" thai radi.1tt"S a combi.nauon of dUlhuritatlve control and irresistible charm, And whilt> Ihere are t>lemenls tn the trailer thal ......e CJn appreciate as amiclpating thE." bravura stylisucs of Kane, such elements tend ro find their justification as pJn oi a dazzling show. Yel, with such J. VIew of the audience. how could Welles hd'Je eve.r imagined 'hal Citi.:"l Kane would be bo,b wdnnly and widely received? The filmmaker who mdny decades later would so movmgly sItuate himself within .. the old American tradiuon of the maverick" Ul his Aft Ufetime Achit>vEmem Award acceplanc(> 5Pl't!Ch." had nO{ yet grasped the pOlential for connict belwpec.ally Ul 1m 101e as someone who wams 10 SlOg the prais.E's of th("sc new dClOno. Yel. the :st.;uenwJlt al;so cJrrics with it a suggestion of WeUes not only .,l.S spokt!.!>pt.)rson, but Jlso 3-, controlling presence, and the notion of ~lIes as such J cOOlrollmg pre~nc(' is everywhere in evidence in Ihe trailer. At the beginning of the traller Welles is clearly the person who has 5oummoned an assistJnt to ha\'e a microphone brought forward so thai he can speak mto it. When Joseph COllen is InlrOOul't."d Welles commands the anonymous, offscreen liglltH\g person to "gi\"~ Joe.a little light." Welle. then proceed. to "direct"' Ibis Mercury player. "Now smile lor Ihe follc.s, Joe...Snnle.· Ruth Wdfrick, 100. is given instruction. by Welles: "Look ., lhl:' camera, Ruth." Notwithstanding the emphasis in the opemng m1l1ulrs of the trailer on rhcwm:al strategies that reflect Welles's strong de lIr 10 iorge a deep bond \\ Ilh the audience. Ius atl1tude towa.rd that audience is also qUlle p.lUOOll.lDg, tor example. if we go back to the passage I quoted from Welles's iotroducoon oi Rav Collins, it is easv to see tll,]t the same slatem("ll\ that wor~ to ~ggol a cnnspirdtorial rel.llionship with the audience (-Here' somoonc }"Ou'v(' all heard on lhe fadio. so J don'l have 10 tell you bc's wonderful"j .lIs conlalUS a note ot Wellesian dfrogance, as he presumes the homogen~ty of the audlellce ("YOU'Y~ aU· h("Md Ray Collins) and recognition of hi rolf' as an arbl1.er of IJSle. Indet.." introductions. concurrent with Ihe conspiratorial tone, is a strong sense or Welles letting the viewer in on insider knowledge. with Welles.. pre.

dlClably, as the ultllM.e insider. 01 Joseph Conen he says, "I.hink you're going see a lot of hun," JHs 5e11~assured stance as a (rend-seuer is particularly appar. em 10 tus iOiroducllon 01 Doroth)" Comingore: "Dorothy Comingore is a name I'm going 10 repeal. Dorothy Comingort", I won'l have 10 repeal It much longer, You'U be- repealing it .. (Figure 8). This is perhaps the most obvious t'Xample ot Welles's supreme confidence not only in his own role as trend· setter and arbiter of tasrt?', but also In his conviction that the yje\\'er will accepl him in these roles. E\'~n the Jndllne1' in which Everetl Sloane 15 mtroduced can bE- read as func(0

tlOOlDg to suggest the sharing of a joke by Welles and (he audience. seemingJy

ftgUfe

4.

a( Sioanp's expense, As Welles says. "Watch if! Here comes Everett Sloane, Look out E\'i're1t. ~ WE'see Sloane. deep in the frame. apparenrly running IOWdTd the camt."ra. only 10 bump linD a mirror which has managed 10 lock both us and,

presumably. Sloane as well (Figure 9). But Welles s additional remark ["Everett Slo.lJle, ladles and gentlemen-he's no. necessarily a comedian."J dg.lin remforces the rappon between tht' director and audience. dnd suggests thai the rnck is more on Sloane than on us. The u e heft' of a kind of magic-mirror trick mtght tempt us

(0

see this

mOffi('nI in tbi' [I.uler as prophetic of one of Onzen Kane's mosl powerful images.

Aftt.~r SUSdn has: It·ft Kane, dnd a distraught Kane bas trdshed her bedroom. Kane's

slow. almost c.lldlonic walk between two mirrors IS captured in a seemmgly infinite series of renections. Yct the mirror gag in the- trailer actually serves to poim

F'lgUre 7.

up IUSI how unrehabtl?" the traHer is us any kind of JCCUrdle fOretasle of the film iISt'If. 'nw (,.'Olnit:: lone ()( the imroduction 10 Sloaoe reflects the upbeill, even jawny

tone of Ihl' trJ..iler as a Whole. Nowhere in the trailer a.re we givt'n any kind of premOllllioll or JUS1 how sombfi> and death·haunted lhe fUnl will be, As well, in the lrailer. W{"!Ieos is ("·omen! to use the camer.l trickery with the mirror a.s pan of a slmpk pratfall gdg [hal m.igh.t make lhe viewer laugh. but cenainly isn't intended

'0 occasion any profound .hought. How diflerent lrom the lilm "sell. where the

reflected imagt'15 of Kane in tlH.' hall of mirrors function on Si....erallevels: as a visual symbol ior .a tormented., shattered soul, and as a correlate lor the arnbtguity of the viewer's own quest 10 understand Kane's chara.cter. ..... her Ihe iDtroducl1on of the Mercury Players. the shot of the mike 15 repealed. Wl'lIes then sees up the transition to the traiJer's second s('C(lon. which wiU focus on lhE:" character of Charles foSler K.:,ne: "CitlZeTI. Kane is a modern Amencan S10ry about a Oldn called Kane. Charles Foster Kane. I don" know how '0 leU you aboul him. there's so m.an . things to say. I'lIlum you over inslead to thecharaete" m the picture. As you'll see, they leel very strongly on the subject.' 1he (l"l"qUent reiter-anon of ")'ou" in thrs Pdssage tunher underscoff'S (he rhE:"loricai UnI'Ort.lJlCe 01 compltdty M'h the ..udienc.. A. the end of the mom.ge Welles encourages the viewer to make up his or her own mind. but such encouragement

Figwe 9.

THE 11IAJLE. fOR

crnzc.N IlANE

10)

10 4udlence- paniCIpation seems Iflgenuous in the light of how hu.le room for 100erpretiUion of lhe characters is really on alter. In his description of llus S al the White House next week; 10 another woman saying thai she gave hlm S60,OOO..CXXJ; to Thatcher repeating his hn£' irorn the movie: "Charles Foster Kane .is nothmg more' or less Oldn a Communist ....

Actually, aU of the actors who 31lpear in Lbis section of the trailer also appear in the [jim itself, For ...mple. the \Yoman who say she gave Charlie S60.000.000 is unmistakably Agnes Moorehead. 8rady's slight confusion is quite understandable, however. since what is suggested about the mo'tivalions and personaJities of some of the' charaneTs in the trailer (even as pedormed by the same actol.$ who would go on to Inhabit the Joles in the film) radically conuadicts our per_ cepuon of the cbaraders In the film itself, Indeed. those of us watching the nailer through the retrospec1i\-'e' knowledge of Qlizen Kane could be excused for barety recognizing some of the ChdI3ete~ in the trailer. GIVen the pOlential for confusion, and given that I would like to refer to a number of details in lbe montage. here 15 a basic transcript of it. indIcating the sequence of shots and what is sdid by each successive performer: Slwr 1 (Erskine Sanford), Charles Fo'ter K.ne is... umph..,umph ... [.ngry.

unintelligible blu..erJ IFigure 10) Slrot 2 (Everen Sloane): Sure he started the war. But do you thmk if it badn't !>grounds elemcms with which the audience woulu bt· mOSl (:omf(ln",bll\ such dS basic character mOlivations aud narrauve mysH.'l"y. t.'V('1l .11 the risk ot making Kane seem like it 1S going to be a fairly 1~'pjcJ.l Hollywood proJl.Id In several wstances. what the characters say is jamngly diiterem not onh' :mOl ,h('Jr remarks in the compl£>led film, but also from what those d'kUdC"tt"'r5.~ por· trayed m Ihe film could ever be unagmed to say Con~,d('r. for eMimple. the ...hol

THE TlAll,U fOIl cnrz.EN ~ IDS

In which Agnes Moorehead Soll"', ·Of course I love hIm-I gave him sixly mJlhoo dollars," We know tbat Moorebead gjves a memordble performance as K.me'S mOlher in the film and Ih.l lhe one :;cene wilh Moorehead in lha' rol. is iuslly celebrated for its haulHing ambiguity with respect to the ffiOlh€'r's mOliv.ltions for sending K.ine away. Only our relrospective knowledge of who Moorellead plays in Ille film could enabl. us to identify ber as Kane's mOlher in lhe trailer. In siriking confrast to the scene with Kane's mother in the fitm itself. this snol in uw traUer (;onveys the impression of somrone whose human motivdtions operale in silnplistic ,ause--and~effect t~nns. Of similar jn!t'n:>st is the shot of Dorothy Comingore saying 10 an offscreen imerlocutor, MOf course I JOVE' him-he's the richest man in America." Again. it is our retrospeclive knowledg. of lh. film thaI enables us 10 idelllify lh. speak€'r a.

Susan A1exandff.

BUI

figure 10.

figure 11.

the suggestion h(>re of Susan as a gold digger is totaJly at

odds with the mm's empha."ils on her being initially attracted 10 Kant' without knOWing who he is. and on her will.ingness to leave him when her cmodollaJ (nOl monelary) needs go unfulfilled. What remaillsslrikingi.lb. manner in which tilt' IrolHer Opts. for such tJ reduClive vIsion of human motivation and cbar. tlCier interaction, totally pe