To ensure that Hearst's life's influence on Citizen Kane was a secret, Welles limited access to dailies and managed the film's publicity. A December 1940 feature story in Stage magazine compared the film's narrative to Faust and made no mention of Hearst.[20]: 111
The film was scheduled to premiere at RKO's flagship theater Radio City Music Hall on February 14, but in early January 1941 Welles was not finished with post-production work and told RKO that it still needed its musical score.[21]: 205 Writers for national magazines had early deadlines and so a rough cut was previewed for a select few on January 3, 1941[20]: 111 for such magazines as Life, Look and Redbook. Gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (an arch-rival of Louella Parsons, the Hollywood correspondent for Hearst papers) showed up to the screening uninvited. Most of the critics at the preview said that they liked the film and gave it good advanced reviews. Hopper wrote negatively about it, calling the film a "vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man" and criticizing its corny writing and old fashioned photography.[21]: 205
Friday magazine ran an article drawing point-by-point comparisons between Kane and Hearst and documented how Welles had led on Parsons.[20]: 111 Up until this Welles had been friendly with Parsons. The magazine quoted Welles as saying that he could not understand why she was so nice to him and that she should "wait until the woman finds out that the picture's about her boss." Welles immediately denied making the statement and the editor of Friday admitted that it might be false. Welles apologized to Parsons and assured her that he had never made that remark.[21]: 205
Film columnist and Hearst employee Louella Parsons was humiliated by Citizen Kane and made numerous threats to prevent the film's release.Shortly after Friday's article, Hearst sent Parsons an angry letter complaining that he had learned about Citizen Kane from Hopper and not her. The incident made a fool of Parsons and compelled her to start attacking Welles and the film. Parsons demanded a private screening of the film and personally threatened Schaefer on Hearst's behalf, first with a lawsuit and then with a vague threat of consequences for everyone in Hollywood. On January 10 Parsons and two lawyers working for Hearst were given a private screening of the film.[21]: 206 James G. Stewart was present at the screening and said that she walked out of the film.[40]: 11
Soon after, Parsons called Schaefer and threatened RKO with a lawsuit if they released Kane.[20]: 111 She also contacted the management of Radio City Music Hall and demanded that they should not screen it.[21]: 206 The next day, the front page headline in Daily Variety read, "HEARST BANS RKO FROM PAPERS."[109] Hearst began this ban by suppressing promotion of RKO's Kitty Foyle,[71]: 94 but in two weeks the ban was lifted for everything except Kane.[20]: 111
When Schaefer did not submit to Parsons she called other studio heads and made more threats on behalf of Hearst to expose the private lives of people throughout the entire film industry.[21]: 206 Welles was then threatened with an exposé about his romance with the married actress Dolores del Río, who wanted the affair kept secret until her divorce was finalized.[21]: 207 In a statement to journalists Welles denied that the film was about Hearst. Hearst began preparing an injunction against the film for libel and invasion of privacy, but Welles's lawyer told him that he doubted Hearst would proceed due to the negative publicity and required testimony that an injunction would bring.[21]: 209
The Hollywood Reporter ran a front-page story on January 13 that Hearst papers were about to run a series of editorials attacking Hollywood's practice of hiring refugees and immigrants for jobs that could be done by Americans. The goal was to put pressure on the other studios to force RKO to shelve Kane.[20]: 111 Many of those immigrants had fled Europe after the rise of fascism and feared losing the haven of the United States.[21]: 209 Soon afterwards, Schaefer was approached by Nicholas Schenck, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's parent company, with an offer on the behalf of Louis B. Mayer and other Hollywood executives to RKO Pictures of $805,000 to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative.[20]: 111–112 [110]
Once RKO's legal team reassured Schaefer, the studio announced on January 21 that Kane would be released as scheduled, and with one of the largest promotional campaigns in the studio's history. Schaefer brought Welles to New York City for a private screening of the film with the New York corporate heads of the studios and their lawyers.[20]: 112 There was no objection to its release provided that certain changes, including the removal or softening of specific references that might offend Hearst, were made.[20]: 112–113 Welles agreed and cut the running time from 122 minutes to 119 minutes. The cuts satisfied the corporate lawyers.[20]: 113
