The American Experience is an unusually intelligent TV show. The episode concerning the 1918 flu outbreak comes to mind as a typical, interesting piece. But here it presents the usual near-hagiography of Welles. And unsure of whether the story is dramatic enough, they exaggerate plenty, and find witnesses to do the same. They give nearly the whole narrative over to bombast, at one point calling Citizen Kane "the movie that ruined both Welles and Hearst." That's just um... hyperbole.It's at least the third time this material has been given the run-through after The Citizen Kane Book, RKO-187, and Citizen Kane itself, an dthat's not counting "The Cat's Meow" about William R Hearst. One smirks noting that there isn't much difference between this and the cheesy techniques in Kane's "News on the March" featurette.Thespian-witness Norman Lloyd who was flown out for 6 weeks of tennis on RKO's dime for a canceled Welles production, finds his own story fascinating; that is, when he's not overacting for the interview, delivering unremarkable memories that he finds remarkable, and obviously bullshitting to make himself seem more interesting.But nothing will prepare you for Sam Leve... no more annoying person has ever existed. He's a comically over-the-top stereotype, who resembles a bushy frog, and insists to viewers that the things actually happened in his now-unremarkable anecdotes. ("I was THERE. I'm NOT TELLING ANY STORIES!") He gesticulates. He shouts. He's impresses himself. He's a self-parody of everything bad in bio-pix; some utter jackass pulled out of mothballs, whose every word comes off as horseshit. This guy applauds himself for forming a sentence, and he's supposed to offer insight? He wears out his welcome in about ten seconds. Really folks.... give Uncle Morty his meds and put him back in the asylum. He's not helping your movie.But mostly the problems are those that afflict the "Behind the Music" series. Anything unique or extraordinary is crushed under the wheels of the unrelenting, typical bio-doc format.

-Maybe Spoilers herein-This film is a documentary about the conflict Between Orson Welles & William Randolph Hearst over the movie "Citizen Kane." There are interviews with many of the people involved with the film. Hearst was a powerful newspaper publisher who sensationalized the news. Many of the stories in his papers were made up. Welles was a radio and theatrical producer who also loved sensationalism. His plays & radio programs were like nothing else seen at the time. His "War of the worlds" broadcast scared the living daylights out of people since it sounded so real. Both men had at least one characteristic in common: They both believed that the ends justify the means. This is how they became successful and how in the end-destroyed themselves and each other.I have two thoughts regarding this battle: 1. I believe that if Hearst wouldn't have raised a racket over the film, The movie would have been destroyed. Because, People would not believe that Hearst was the kind of man Welles portrays. However, since he did raise a racket people wondered if the events depicted in "Citizen Kane" are true. Otherwise, he wouldn't have raised a racket. 2. These two men were their own worst enemies. There lifestyles and The way they conducted business would eventually come back to haunt them and it did. If you fly too high too soon, you will crash-what goes up MUST COME DOWN! The film "Citizen Kane" set these two on a collision course-they did 15 rounds in the ring and killed each other in the process.Both the newspaper and film industries can learn many lessons.1. The newspaper industry: Never let one man have that much control. There must be accountability here-It is irresponsible to make up stories about living people. In many cases(As he did with Orson Welles)if he didn't like you it was not pretty. This is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they gave us freedom of the press.2. The film industry: Never EVER give complete control to one man. While Welles made a brilliant film, it was about a real living person. Regardless how one feels about Hearst, the fact is it is irresponsible to portray him the way he did in the film.In short-another way of saying this for both: NEVER LET THE IMMATES RUN THE ASSYUM!!The only winner in this battle is the film itself. Perhaps Welles could have at least a little consolation over the fact-that this film is now considered one of the greatest films of all time. And in this day of the DVD format-this film will be forever Preserved. Thank God for that!

"The Battle Over Citizen Kane" is an informative companion piece to the Welles classic film. For those under-familiar or unfamiliar with the subject, this documentary offers an enlightening introduction. To those already knowledgeable in this subject, "Battle" may be of less interest.There are sharp parallels made between Welles and Hearst, and there is fine archival footage of the two early careers. Both were giants in their respective areas, with notable crossovers between journalism and theater, thanks to stylistic flamboyancies of each. This documentary depicts the influence of power and wealth upon the human personality, and how it can become an obsession for greater acquisition--be it in the form of physical object or artistic success.Both personalities seemed to enjoy courageous controversy and daring defiance--even thriving on it. Both lives were played out like nineteenth century Romantics, vacillating between poles of extreme and excess. Yet, in the end, it is Welles who emerges the victor. His legacy is forever enshrined in the halls of greatness, long after Heart's name has become faint or forgotten. In his '82 BBC interview, Welles appeared sympathetic to a suggestion made to him in '38 that he should retire from filmmaking.I personally don't buy that idea. Regardless of the obvious career "decline" after "Kane," Welles crafted many wonderful, memorable performances as actor, and unique, unforgettable films as director. He was and remains a force to be reckoned with, in the media of radio, stage, and motion pictures.Nor do I fully appreciate such labels as "greatest of all time" slapped upon "Kane." Such titles inadvertently tend to invite comparative--even reactionary--responses, rather than allowing the viewer to freely discover and uncover remarkable layers of quality in the work.I'm sure they'll eventually be better documentaries on this subject; for now, though, "The Battle Over Citizen Kane" fulfills its objective competently.

More than simply an account of the making of America's (arguably) greatest film, THE BATTLE OVER CITIZEN KANE studies the oddly parallel personalities behind the movie, as well as the politics of Hollywood circa 1940. Originally broadcast on PBS' AMERICAN EXPERIENCE series (one of the better things on American TV), it may pale in comparison to other arts documentaries but gives worthwhile insight to two of America's most complex and protean figures.