Radio City Music Hall's management refused to screen Citizen Kane for its premiere. A possible factor was Parsons's threat that The American Weekly would run a defamatory story on the grandfather of major RKO stockholder Nelson Rockefeller.[20]: 115 Other exhibitors feared being sued for libel by Hearst and refused to show the film.[21]: 216 In March Welles threatened the RKO board of governors with a lawsuit if they did not release the film. Schaefer stood by Welles and opposed the board of governors.[21]: 210 When RKO still delayed the film's release Welles offered to buy the film for $1 million and the studio finally agreed to release the film on May 1.[21]: 215
Schaefer managed to book a few theaters willing to show the film. Hearst papers refused to accept advertising.[20]: 115 RKO's publicity advertisements for the film erroneously promoted it as a love story.[21]: 217
Kane opened at the RKO Palace Theatre on Broadway in New York on May 1, 1941,[13] in Chicago on May 6, and in Los Angeles on May 8.[20]: 115 Welles said that at the Chicago premiere that he attended the theater was almost empty.[21]: 216
Response at the time of release
Critical reviews fell into three types: great, mixed, and negative. Most were in the first category. The day following the premiere of Citizen Kane, The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote that "it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood... Count on Mr. Welles: he doesn't do things by halves. ... Upon the screen he discovered an area large enough for his expansive whims to have free play. And the consequence is that he has made a picture of tremendous and overpowering scope, not in physical extent so much as in its rapid and graphic rotation of thoughts. Mr. Welles has put upon the screen a motion picture that really moves".[112]
The Washington Post called it "one of the most important films in the history" of filmmaking.[113] The Washington Evening Star said Welles was a genius who created "a superbly dramatic biography of another genius" and "a picture that is revolutionary".[114] The Chicago Tribune called the film interesting and different but "its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value".[115] New York Daily News critic Kate Cameron called it "one of the most interesting and technically superior films that has ever come out of a Hollywood studio".[116] New York World-Telegram critic William Boehnel said that the film was "staggering and belongs at once among the greatest screen achievements".[117] Time magazine wrote that "it has found important new techniques in picture-making and story-telling."[21]: 211 Life magazine's review said that "few movies have ever come from Hollywood with such powerful narrative, such original technique, such exciting photography."[21]: 211 John C. Mosher of The New Yorker called the film's style "like fresh air" and raved "Something new has come to the movie world at last."[118]: 68 Anthony Bower of The Nation called it "brilliant" and praised the cinematography and performances by Welles, Comingore and Cotten.[119] John O'Hara's Newsweek review called it the best picture he'd ever seen and said Welles was "the best actor in the history of acting."[21]: 211 Welles called O'Hara's review "the greatest review that anybody ever had."[37]: 100
In the UK C. A. Lejeune of The Observer called it "The most exciting film that has come out of Hollywood in twenty-five years"[120] and Dilys Powell of The Sunday Times said the film's style was made "with the ease and boldness and resource of one who controls and is not controlled by his medium."[121]: 63 Edward Tangye Lean of Horizon praised the film's technical style, calling it "perhaps a decade ahead of its contemporaries."[122][k]
Other reviews were mixed. Edwin Schallert of the Los Angeles Times said it was brilliant and skillful at times, but had an ending that "rather fizzled".[124] Otis Ferguson of The New Republic said it was "the boldest free-hand stroke in major screen production since Griffith and Bitzer were running wild to unshackle the camera", but also criticized its style, calling it a "retrogression in film technique" and stating that "it holds no great place" in film history.[125] Ferguson reacted to some of the film's celebrated visual techniques by calling them "just willful dabbling" and "the old shell game." In a rare film review, filmmaker Erich von Stroheim criticized the film's story and non-linear structure, but praised the technical style and performances, and wrote "Whatever the truth may be about it, Citizen Kane is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Welles!"[126]
Some prominent critics wrote negative reviews. None of them dismissed the film as being altogether bad, noting the film's undeniable technical effects, but they did find fault with the narrative. Eileen Creelman of The New York Sun called it "a cold picture, unemotional, a puzzle rather than a drama".[35]: 178 In his 1941 review for Sur, Jorge Luis Borges famously called the film "a labyrinth with no center" and predicted that its legacy would be a film "whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again."[127] The Argus Weekend Magazine critic Erle Cox called the film "amazing" but thought that Welles's break with Hollywood traditions was "overdone".[128] Tatler's James Agate called it "the well-intentioned, muddled, amateurish thing one expects from high-brows";[129] he admitted that it was "a quite good film" but insisted that it "tries to run the psychological essay in harness with your detective thriller, and doesn't quite succeed."[130] Other people who disliked the film were W. H. Auden[37]: 98 and James Agee.[37]: 99 After watching the film on January 29, 1942, future British star Kenneth Williams, then aged 15, curtly described the film in his first diary as "boshey rot".[131]
Reception from the public
The film did well in cities and larger towns, but it fared poorly in more remote areas. RKO still had problems getting exhibitors to show the film. For example, one chain controlling more than 500 theaters got Welles's film as part of a package but refused to play it, reportedly out of fear of Hearst.[20]: 117 Hearst's disruption of the film's release damaged its boxoffice performance and, as a result, it lost $160,000 during its initial run.[132]: 164 [133] The film earned $23,878 during its first week in New York. By the ninth week it only made $7,279. Overall it lost money in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., but made a profit in Seattle.[21]: 216
Moviegoers who saw the picture generally spread negative word of mouth among their neighbors, and exhibitors in the United States and Canada weren't shy about voicing their reactions, as published in Motion Picture Herald. A few theater owners were discerning, recognizing the startling new techniques but conceding bad boxoffice: "Is likely to make your auditorium resound from vacuousness like the giant stone walls in Kane's incredible castle. Boxoffice or no boxoffice, this unusual film is without doubt a step toward elevating the artistic plane of the motion picture in general."[134] A college-town exhibitor reported, "I thought it was fine, as did the majority of people who attended the performances. However, there were some who either did not like it or did not get it. Business was just average."[135] "Don't try to tell me Orson Welles isn't a genius; herein he has produced a mighty fine picture, and herewith he has established for me the lowest gross that I have ever, ever experienced. I would have sworn that such ridiculous receipts were utterly impossible. If you cater to film connoisseurs, this picture is made for you. But me, I hurt all over."[136] Others were more blunt: "Nobody liked this and said so. We took in just enough to pay for it so considered ourselves very lucky."[137] "One day after showing this we still feel hesitant about walking abroad without an escort. Half of the few dozen that paid to see this masterpiece walked out, and the other half remained only to think up new dirty cracks to cast in our direction on the way out."[138] "High priced picture. But I made a little money on my help. They took off three days because they were afraid of being all alone in the theatre."[139] "You can stand in front of a mirror and call yourself 'sucker' when you play this one. It does not have one redeeming feature. It will not draw; those that do come will not know what it is all about."[140] A Minnesota exhibitor summed up the situation for rural areas: "My patrons still don't know what it was all about. Too long and too deep. No boxoffice value to small towns."[141]
Hearst's response
Hearing about Citizen Kane enraged Hearst so much that he banned any advertising, reviewing, or mentioning of it in his papers, and had his journalists libel Welles.[110] Welles used Hearst's opposition as a pretext for previewing the film in several opinion-making screenings in Los Angeles, lobbying for its artistic worth against the hostile campaign that Hearst was waging.[110] A special press screening took place in early March. Henry Luce was in attendance and reportedly wanted to buy the film from RKO for $1 million to distribute it himself. The reviews for this screening were positive. A Hollywood Review headline read, "Mr. Genius Comes Through; 'Kane' Astonishing Picture". The Motion Picture Herald reported about the screening and Hearst's intention to sue RKO. Time magazine wrote that "The objection of Mr. Hearst, who founded a publishing empire on sensationalism, is ironic. For to most of the several hundred people who have seen the film at private screenings, Citizen Kane is the most sensational product of the U.S. movie industry." A second press screening occurred in April.[71]: 94
When Schaefer rejected Hearst's offer to suppress the film, Hearst banned every newspaper and station in his media conglomerate from reviewing—or even mentioning—the film. He also had many movie theaters ban it, and many did not show it through fear of being socially exposed by his massive newspaper empire.[142] The Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for the film's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable. Nevertheless, the film's commercial performance fell short of its creators' expectations.[90] Hearst's biographer David Nasaw points out that Hearst's actions were not the only reason Kane failed, however: the innovations Welles made with narrative, as well as the dark message at the heart of the film (that the pursuit of success is ultimately futile) meant that a popular audience could not appreciate its merits.[143]: 572–573
Hearst's attacks against Welles went beyond attempting to suppress the film. Welles said that while he was on his post-filming lecture tour a police detective approached him at a restaurant and advised him not to go back to his hotel. A 14-year-old girl had reportedly been hidden in the closet of his room, and two photographers were waiting for him to walk in. Knowing he would be jailed after the resulting publicity, Welles did not return to the hotel but waited until the train left town the following morning. "But that wasn't Hearst," Welles said, "that was a hatchet man from the local Hearst paper who thought he would advance himself by doing it."[22]: 85–86
In March 1941, Welles directed a Broadway version of Richard Wright's Native Son (and, for luck, used a "Rosebud" sled as a prop). Native Son received positive reviews, but Hearst-owned papers used the opportunity to attack Welles as a communist.[21]: 213 The Hearst papers vociferously attacked Welles after his April 1941 radio play, "His Honor, the Mayor",[144] produced for The Free Company radio series on CBS.[98]: 113 [145]
Welles described his chance encounter with Hearst in an elevator at the Fairmont Hotel on the night Citizen Kane opened in San Francisco. Hearst and Welles's father were acquaintances, so Welles introduced himself and asked Hearst if he would like to come to the opening. Hearst did not respond. "As he was getting off at his floor, I said, 'Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.' No reply", recalled Welles. "And Kane would have, you know. That was his style—just as he finished Jed Leland's bad review of Susan as an opera singer."[22]: 49–50 [146]
In 1945, Hearst journalist Robert Shaw wrote that the film got "a full tide of insensate fury" from Hearst papers, "then it ebbed suddenly. With one brain cell working, the chief realized that such hysterical barking by the trained seals would attract too much attention to the picture. But to this day the name of Orson Welles is on the official son-of-a-bitch list of every Hearst newspaper".[118]: 102
Despite Hearst's attempts to destroy the film, since 1941 references to his life and career have usually included a reference to Citizen Kane, such as the headline 'Son of Citizen Kane Dies' for the obituary of Hearst's son.[147] In 2012, the Hearst estate agreed to screen the film at Hearst Castle in San Simeon, breaking Hearst's ban on the film.[146]
