Jennifer Jones and Gregory Peck get busy in Duel In The Sun.
“The most repellent film I have seen this year. It contains all the impurities of the foulest human dross. It is sadism at its deepest level. It is the fleshpots of Pharaoh, modernized and filled to the overflowing. It is mental and physical putrefaction on the march but nearing the end of final decomposition.”
That was notorious Memphis film censor Lloyd Binford talking about Duel in the Sun. Binford was the head of the censor board in the Bluff City for 28 years. He decided what did and didn’t play on the big screen here, and Hollywood listened. He was an avowed white supremacist who once banned the 1947 Our Gang reboot Curley because it portrayed a mixed-race classroom. “During the mid- and late-1940s Binford particularly targeted any film that depicted social intermingling between races, no matter how innocent nor how mundane that interaction was,” says Steven J. Ross, professor emeritus at the University of Memphis. “Unless it unequivocally depicted Blacks as being subservient and deferential to white people, Binford either banned such films entirely or demanded the offending scenes be cut. Most famously, MGM relegated Lena Horne exclusively to song and dance numbers that could be removed from the film without affecting the story when it played in Memphis.”
As you can see from the opening quote, another film Binford absolutely hated was Duel in the Sun. But it wasn’t a low-budget “race picture,” nor did it depict a train robbery (which was another sore spot with the unpredictable and grumpy censor). It was the second most popular film in America, written and produced by legendary Hollywood exec David O. Selznick, and cost more to make than Gone With The Wind. It starred A-listers Joseph Cotten, Gregory Peck, Lillian Gish, and Lionel Barrymore; star Jennifer Jones received an Academy Award nomination for her performance. And it was directed by King Vidor, the Texan who had put Memphis on the Hollywood map in 1929 with the all-Black musical Hallelujah.
No, Binford hated Duel in the Sun because it was just too sexy. “It is far from a great film,” Ross says. “But it absolutely was pushing the boundaries as to how far a prestige, big-budget film could depict sex and violence. Its nickname in the trade papers was ‘Lust in the Dust.’”
Jennifer Jones packing heat as Pearl Chavez in Duel in the Sun.
Ross has been studying Binford’s legacy as part of a new documentary project about the infamous censor with producers Barbara Hall and Tamara Trexler, and with Chris Blair, professor of media arts at Union University. “Binford made Memphis so notorious during his quarter-century reign as dead censor that the phrase ‘Banned in Memphis’ virtually became a nationwide advertising slogan to lure movie goers with the promise of something forbidden.”
Ross says Binford’s efforts to keep Memphians pure from the corrupting sights of cowpokes getting busy were all for naught, as moviegoers flocked across the bridge to West Memphis to see the picture. On August 26, Binford will again be thwarted when Ross hosts a screening of Duel in the Sun at Black Lodge, the Midtown movie Mecca that Ross calls “the perfect venue for films that are disreputable and yet full of astounding imagery. With Duel, we can laugh at its heaving-bosom, overheated sense of ‘forbidden sex’ while also appreciating the fever-dream quality of its lurid Technicolor images, which fortunately have been restored to all their original, over-the-top glory. If trash this be, it is trash made with the same skill, resources, imagination, and technical expertise seen in all the highly regarded Oscar-winning films that had made Selznick’s reputation as the most prestigious of all independent producers.”
Duel in the Sun rolls at 7 p.m. on Thursday, August 26; afterwards, Ross will lead a discussion of the deliciously trashy Western.
For this installment of Never Seen It, we welcome Jon W. Sparks, editor of Inside Memphis Business. Sparks is a longtime journalist who came from a community newspaper in New York City in 1981 to work at The Commercial Appeal. Since taking a buyout 10 years ago, he’s written for several local and national publications before taking the helm of Inside Memphis Business. He is also an actor familiar to Memphis film and theater fans for his appearances in both locally produced films and on the stage. We were joined by Sparks’ wife, Memphis College of Art professor Maritza Dávila, and my wife, filmmaker Laura Jean Hocking.
Our film is Orson Welles’ masterpiece Citizen Kane.
Chris McCoy: Tell me what you know about Citizen Kane.
Jon Sparks: I know it makes most of the top ten, if not five, lists of the greatest movies ever. But I’ll be the judge of that.
JS: I know it’s heralded for the brilliance of its writing, the concepts, the ending, the black and white cinematography. Orson Welles, of course, leaves a mark on everything he does. Maybe not always good, but he leaves a mark. And I have seen a little bit here and there.
CM: Anything specific?
JS: I’m remembering shouting crowds and Joseph Cotton. I think there were some spinning newspapers.
Never Seen It: Watching Citizen Kane with Inside Memphis Business Editor Jon Sparks (5)
119 minutes later…
JS: I’m not accustomed to being on this side of the recorder. This is uncomfortable.
CM: I know! OK. Citizen Kane. What did you think?
JS: When you see films that are biographies, essentially, this film set the standard cinematically, and in so many ways. Movies made today that are biographies don’t have the surprises and the approach this one does. This one is fresh today, because of the story angles it takes and the conclusions it reaches with each scene, the time line going back and forth, with Joseph Cotton reminiscing about the old days. But even then, it’s stitched together differently from anything today.
CM: It’s not a three act play, for one thing. It’s six or seven. It lays out the whole story in the opening newsreel. There are no plot surprises after the first ten minutes.
JS: It’s interesting that the newsreel looked so rough. It was really cheesy, the effects were pretty low grade, which is what you would expect out of a newsreel. Then it begins to tell the story, and it’s very theatrical. They even stage a lot of things in a theater.
Title card from the newsreel sequence.
CM: Does the acting feel theatrical?
JS: The acting is all uniformly good, but you can recognize the skills of the theater people doing it.
Laura Jean Hocking: When they’re talking over each other, that seems very theatrical to me. I don’t think you saw that very much before this movie. I associate it with like, Rosalind Russell and the sort of sassy dame stuff. There’s so many things that happened for the first time in this movie.
JS: You pointed out when they started the shot with a close up of a face and then pulling back into the establishing shot. But the acting was so incredibly skillful. I was knocked out by Everett Sloane’s Bernstein. I love how, in the beginning, an editor is barking out orders to reporters: ‘Go find that guy! What’s his name? Its Bernstein! The manager!’ Then the next time he’s mentioned, it’s again ‘What’s his name? Bernstein!’ It’s like he’s so inconsequential, but he’s the thread that goes through Kane’s life. He never divorced him or ran away from him. Bernstein was there and he understood Kane probably better than anyone.
CM: Bernstein’s take is the most objective of all of them. He never really took Kane seriously, but he didn’t hate him, either.
Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane.
JS: But he understood him well enough to function with him. The same actor did him from old to young, but in a way he always looked old….And that’s just one great performance. Anges Moorehead, forget about it! She’s got that face that is so hard, and here she is a mother giving up her child.
CM: Her voice breaks when she says ‘Charlie’, and that’s the only bit of emotion that she lets slip through. It tears your heart out! One of my favorite things that has trickled through films ever since is the ‘Citizen Kane shot’, where there are two people in the foreground framing one person in the background. The two people in the foreground are talking about the person in the background, but the person in the background doesn’t know they’re being talked about. That happens at least twice in this movie. The first time it’s mom and dad and the banker, with Charlie framed in the window in the background. The second time he does it, there’s a freakin’ musical scene going on! He shows you how the composition is going to work in the first angle, then he goes to the reverse angle and boom, it’s exactly the same shot from before, with two people discussing Kane’s fate while Kane is dancing around trying to get their attention. Welles rubs your face in it.
The first instance of the ‘Citizen Kane shot’.
Ten minutes later, the second instance.
#2 in context:
Never Seen It: Watching Citizen Kane with Inside Memphis Business Editor Jon Sparks (2)
Maritza Dávila: I thought the acting was so natural. The first wife was such a lady, and you could tell she always had to act like that, so proper. And Orson Welles. Wow.
LJ: How old was he?
CM: I think he was 24. It’s ridiculous. I’ve wasted my life.
MD: His acting…even when he is so restrained, you can just feel it in him, the feeling that, ‘I have to win!’ All that childhood trauma that he was never able to get rid of. The same behavior that he has with his guardian, he continues that behavior over and over again. With everything.
CM: He would redirect that energy towards somebody else, but it was always the same energy.
…
JS: I love some of the choices Welles makes. When he gets married for the first time, they tell the whole story with a series of scenes at the breakfast table. They just get farther and farther apart….Now the other relationship, a bit more traditional.
Never Seen It: Watching Citizen Kane with Inside Memphis Business Editor Jon Sparks (4)
CM: He uses the other relationship to sneak in the jigsaw puzzle, which is really the overarching metaphor for the whole thing. He just sneaks it in there. That’s one of the things that’s great about the screenplay. Everything pays off. Everything you think is just a throwaway detail turns out to be a setup.
MD: The comedic relief throughout the whole movie is so well placed.
CM: One thing that struck me this time through—and maybe this is a result of reviewing movies all the time—is that this is so much denser than anything you see today.
JS: Part of that is at the beginning. They hit all these high points and then never visit them again. I thought, well OK, they tell the story fast, then they’re going to tell it slow. But they didn’t do that. They filled in the spaces. The death of his first wife and son is never dealt with at all. The stock market crash and the Great Depression is the same thing. They kind of go, ‘Oh, well, we don’t have as much money as we used to.’ But expanding on those obvious points is something that would be done today. They would show it with all the tears and everything.
CM: And hearing you say that makes me think, if I was giving advice on a screenplay, I would give that note. ‘Why don’t we get to see him losing all his money? Why don’t we get to see his wife and son dying?’ I would have given bad notes to Orson Welles.
LJH: Once his wife and kid leave you never see them again. You don’t have to.
JS: And that’s good writing, to only say something one time, and say it right. You see that in beginning writers. They’ll tell you the same thing a bunch of different ways, because they’re just so in love with the idea. Just express it one good way.
CM: Have faith that your audience is smart enough to put the pieces together.
…
CM: So, Mr. Editor of Inside Memphis Business, this is a movie about business and wealth and capitalism.
JS: He was a very rich man who was on the side of the poor man. He was going to devote his life to making the plight of the underdog much better. He was clearly going to make the country great again, in some fashion.
CM: It’s very relevant today, because he feels like Trump. He even does the ‘Lock her up!’ stuff.
JS: That was prescient.
CM: Obviously, the character is based on William Randolph Hearst, but he becomes Teddy Roosevelt for a minute there.
Never Seen It: Watching Citizen Kane with Inside Memphis Business Editor Jon Sparks (6)
MS: One thing that occurred to me, with all of the things that happened to him, he never matured.
LJH: When Susan leaves, he throws a tantrum and tears her room up.
MD: That was the most out of control he found himself. And then he died. Before that, he was like, ‘I want to make you a singer. Not because you want to be a singer, but because I want you to be a singer.’ He was just putting all of that need into every single person he meets..
CM: And when she says she doesn’t want to be up there in front of an audience that doesn’t want her, he says, ‘That’s when you have to fight them!’ This time, I was like, wow, that’s exactly the wrong thing to do.
JS: He has the resources that, if people don’t want him, he can change. He can buy a newspaper. But she is stuck in that one role, playing that one thing. She doesn’t have the versatility that he has, but he doesn’t see that. If there is anything that’s repeated, it’s that insecure side of him that people kept reminding him of. You just want to be loved. You just want to love yourself. That’s what she tells him when she finally stomps out. He says ‘I need you to do this!’ She says, ‘Oh yeah. It’s about what you need. Adios! Tear up the room! I’m outta here!’
…
CM: What is this film’s view of business, of capitalism?
JS: It was not very positive, as Hollywood films often are. It had a very low opinion of business. In the very beginning, before we see him as the shabby character he really is, we see him as a heroic trustbuster. This comical character, his stepfather, is the goof. But he’s a typical trust guy. He’s a slumlord who embodies all the evils of capitalism. So Kane goes after him, but not because he believes it.
CM: Kane is not a Marxist.
JS: Kane is a Kane-ist. He’s just sticking it to the old man because he’s the old man…They don’t really make a whole lot about how Kane acquired these newspapers and built an empire. They throw a little bit at you about how he says, ‘We need to raid that newspaper and get their best people.’ Then he just does it. There’s no particular shrewdness that you see in any of that. There’s no great lessons to be learned about how to run your business. You do have the conscience, Jed, who is something of a besotted conscience, who tries to keep him a little bit honest. For god sake, don’t start a war!
Never Seen It: Watching Citizen Kane with Inside Memphis Business Editor Jon Sparks (3)
CM: The point of view that the Spanish American War was a media phenomenon was not a widespread thing in 1940. People did not think that yet. And they were literally in the middle of a media push to start another war. I feel like it has a much more sophisticated take on politics than on business.
JS: Yes. And again, just an interesting, savvy, storytelling. He runs for office and fails.
CM: Do you think we’re seeing what would have happened if Charles Foster Kane would have won?
LJH: You have the fraud at the polls headline and everything!
JS: I think it’s futile to try to draw too many parallels between the movie and today. What’s happening today has destroyed satire as an art form. Veep is one of the funniest shows on television. You can laugh at the jokes, but the absurdity of the situations aren’t quite as effective compared to our daily headlines.
CM: You’ve been a journalist for a long time. This is about journalism more than it is about business or politics. Kane today would be, who, Murdoch? Roger Ailes?
JS: He’s more of a Murdoch. Ailes was more ideological about it. Murdoch is all about acquiring the properties and getting the reach.
CM: …and this is all collateral damage from Murdoch’s drive to be number one in the ratings. Which is also kind of Trump’s thing. He really doesn’t care about anything about ratings.
JS: His stated need was to go get the people. He wanted to be the voice of the people, and for the people to come to him. He wanted people to love him, and that was through numbers, how it worked for him. Of course today it is so different. Back then one story in one place could make a huge difference. Now a story has to appear in a lot of different places to make any big deal about it.
LJH: But now you see a story that pops up in multiple places and then Fox News will go ‘No! No!’ and it will disappear. Who is even listening to them?
CM: In Kane, you see the end of that phenomenon. You see the Kane network slowly lose relevance because people stopped believing it. I feel like that’s the process you’re seeing right now, a disenthrallment. They’ve finally gone too far. There’s too much evidence. Trump not only is Kane, but Trump is Susan. He gets in the opera house and has to sing, only to discover he’s not a good singer.
JS: But Susan goes on tour. You see Inquirer papers all over America proclaiming her a great singer, and saying ‘sold out audiences!’ But then people go see her and she’s not a great singer. The truth really does matter.
…
CM: So, is Citizen Kane the best movie ever made?
JS: No. It’s not the greatest movie ever made, but you shouldn’t wait until you’re 67 to see it. It’s a movie that needs to be seen. It’s important on a number of levels. It’s an incredible story about America…In a way it’s like Death of a Salesman. It shows how business and money can take over someone’s life and crush you.
CM: What’s better?
JS: I don’t know…
CM: Vertigo is the one that overtook it in the Sight & Sound poll. Is that better?
JS: I don’t know. I do love Hitchcock.
CM: Personally, I don’t agree. I think this is better than Vertigo. I don’t even think Vertigo is Hitchcock’s best movie. I like Rear Window better. So what do you think is better than Citizen Kane?
JS: I think probably the two Godfathers, just in terms of sheer scope and artistry. There’s brilliance from top to bottom. Another one of my favorite films is Seven Beauties. And I have a real soft spot for 8 1/2.
This afternoon I popped the old Citizen Kane DVD in the Blu Ray player and sat down to fast forward through to the parts about politics. I ended up watching the whole thing, not only because it’s the legit best movie ever made, but also because it’s pretty much all about politics.
It’s the sign of a great work of art that you can see something new in it every time you experience it. Orson Welles’ masterpiece is film’s version of the Great American Novel; it’s the story of a specific person who stands in for something in the national character. Charles Foster Kane is the national character, in the same way the bald eagle is the national bird.
If Welles’ only involvement with Citizen Kane was as its lead actor, it would still be one of the greatest achievements in film history. Welles plays Kane at almost every stage of his life. (Even Buddy Swan, the young actor who plays Charlie at age 8, bears a frightening resemblance to Welles.) The details of Kane’s life are famously based on newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, but I think Welles was going for something deeper than a thinly veiled biopic. Citizen Kane is about the kind of person who would seek power.
One of the great gifts George Washington gave to American democracy is the reverence for Cincinnatus, the Roman general who, when given dictatorial powers over the Roman Republic, resolved the military emergency, handed in his crown, and returned to his farm. The most worthy leaders, we believe, should be those who serve reluctantly, recognizing the corrosive effect of power on the soul of the wielder.
Kane is not like that. Upon taking control of his newspaper, the fictional New York Inquirer, his first act is to lower the editorial standards and print sensation instead of what the stodgy old staff considers news. Later, he abuses the power of the press to drum up a fake war that becomes a real war—his motivation, like Hearst’s, seems to be beyond just selling more newspapers. Kane starts a war just to see if he can.
But, just like Roger Ailes’ fall from the pinnacle of Fox News, his lax journalistic standards come back to haunt him. When Kane runs for Governor of New York, he claims to be, as his best friend Leland (Joseph Cotton in a performance for the ages) says, “the great liberal.” Next we see Kane giving a stump speech in a scene that would not look too out of place on the 2016 campaign trail, and his pitch is pure demagoguery. He claims to be fighting for the “underpaid and underfed”, but his only real policy pledge is to arrest and prosecute his political opponent, the allegedly corrupt Governor Jim Gettys (Ray Collins). But Kane the political dilettante gets his comeuppance that very night, when Gettys reveals what a real cutthroat politician can do. Kane has been having a typically reckless affair with the cabaret singer Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore), and Gettys gives him a taste of his own medicine by ensuring the story gets splashed on every newspaper in the state that Kane doesn’t own, generating delightfully written headlines such as “Entrapped By Wife As Love Pirate, Kane Refuses to Quit Race.”
Like Donald Trump, Kane is a spoiled rich boy. “I always gagged on the silver spoon,” the unreflective Kane says as he is being deposed as the head of his media empire. “If I hadn’t been rich, I could have been a really great man.”
Leland says all Kane ever wanted was love, and he ran for office to get the voters to love him. Like most politicians, his personality is built over a bottomless hole that can never be filled. Welles, however, is hinting at something more complex. The last time we see Kane in the film, he’s a beaten man, walking between two mirrors that create an infinity of reflections, as if his relentlessly self-constructed identity has been shattered, and all that is left are shards of imperfect images. Ambition is our national malady, and too much is inevitably fatal. As Kane himself says in the opening newsreel detailing the events of his life, “I am, have been, and always will be one thing: An American.”
