Every film studied in Critical Approach is in the cinematic ‘canon,' meaning it is generally accepted as one of the most influential pieces of work in the medium of film. But no film on the syllabus better exemplifies film as a medium than Citizen Kane.
Only a handful of movies have been called the greatest film of all time on a repeated basis; some films that usually make the cut include The Godfather, Gone With the Wind, and Casablanca. Citizen Kane is different. It always makes the list. And most of the time, it stands at #1. Martin Scorsese even said Citizen Kane is the film that made him understand what it meant to be a director. Why do you think this is?
Most people's first encounter with Citizen Kane involves a combination of disillusionment and boredom. How could a movie this long and this uninteresting possibly be considered the greatest work of cinema in the history of the medium? A lot of things just don't make sense - if he died alone, who actually knew that "Rosebud" was his last word? (Welles' editor reportedly asked him about this discrepancy, to which the director replied, "You must tell no one of this"). However, Citizen Kane, like many of the films on this syllabus, actually gets significantly better the more you watch it.
Orson Welles was only 24 when he directed, wrote, shot, and starred in Citizen Kane. Plus, he was granted his choice of actors, and, most significant of all, final cut privileges. This was unheard of at the time, especially for a first-time director at such a young age. Why would the studios allow this? Well, Welles produced a War of the Worlds radio program that was ingeniously styled as a Breaking News program. Millions of listeners were convinced that Martians were invading the planet, After a public apology, RKO Radio Pictures hired the young man to make a movie without limits, convinced of his supernatural talents.
If you ever want a good glimpse into Welles' personal life after Citizen Kane, check out Ed Wood, a small-budget Tim Burton movie that stars Johnny Depp. During one scene, Orson Welles, played by Vincent D'Onofrio, talks to Ed Wood about the making of Citizen Kane. He says that that movie was the one thing he ever did for Hollywood in which he had complete creative control. No studio input, no other naysayers to stop him. No matter how much it was based on newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, and no matter how much the man tried to stop the director, the film was still true to its original screenplay. Citizen Kane was Orson Welles', and his alone. He then states he hasn't had that creative freedom since, and because Citizen Kane failed financially amidst a brutal war with Hearst, he was stifled as an artist for the rest of his career. Besides a few good shots, and a few solid acting gigs, Welles' career was never the same after Citizen Kane. One of the industry's brightest stars was lost after only one film.
In terms of this course, examine how precisely constructed Citizen Kane is: the first ten minutes alone explain the entire story in a nutshell. The malevolent animals haunting Xanadu, Kane's death and final utterance, and the fake newsreel all explain what Citizen Kane is trying to say. Note the use of non-linear, different points of view that tell Kane's story - this was a completely new concept at the time of release. Even the actors other than Welles worked great together (mostly because they were all from the same theater troupe, the Mercury Players). The people never really mattered to Charles Foster Kane, though. Did he ever love the women he married? Or did he ever really care about his friends? Was anyone important to him?
Orson Welles shot the movie largely using innovative camera techniques that were unheard of at the time. As for my personal favorite, what do you notice is so unique about the dining room table of Kane and his first wife? (Hint: how does the size of the object change?) The opening sequence at Xanadu is still fantastic to this day, and the opera scenes are large and magnificent.
Citizen Kane has a great message: no matter how much money you make, and no matter how much stuff you own, no happiness can come from the material. "Rosebud", it turns out, is a child's sled - used by Charles when he was a young boy playing in the snow. It was the one moment of his entire life in which he was truly happy. What did you think about this twist ending? What did you think "Rosebud" meant?
One of the most important elements of Citizen Kane is understanding how badly the film was challenged upon its production. It was forced to run under a closed set, and newspapers had little to no prior knowledge of the movie before it was seen. Because of the film's not-so-subtle allegories to William Randolph Hearst, the newspaper tycoon heavily protested the film's release. He had his journalists libel Welles, and tried to bribe RKO into burning all the film's negatives. There were even rumors that Hearst tried to frame Welles with a naked prostitute in his hotel suite the night of the film's premiere.
Though the film is now considered a classic, at the time of its release it received poor box office receipts. It was nominated for nine Oscars, but lost all but Best Original Screenplay, bested in the Best Picture race by How Green Was My Valley?. Subsequently, the film faded from memory for decades, only to be revived in 1956 by several French critics who hailed it as a masterpiece and a cornerstone of the film industry.
The American Film Institute listed Citizen Kane as the #1 film of all time. Sight & Sound magazine, a decennial list of the best from noted critics, historians, and filmmakers, had the movie on top for five decades, before moving to #2 in 2012 (we will watch the movie that bumped it later this semester... any guesses?). And filmmakers are still trying to translate the magic and innovation of Kane, but none have seemed to master it. Not even Orson Welles, who besides his three-and-a-half minute opening shot of Touch of Evil, ever managed to make a movie nearly as good as Citizen Kane.
With all of this in mind... Do you think Citizen Kane deserves to be recognized as the greatest film of all time?
At first, I was a bit hesitant during the first 20 minutes of this movie. On whether it would be any good or not, and the narrator's voice was fast and a bit anxious But when the characters began their place and the plot was progressing, I could see how this film could be one of the best. Since we have a lot of movies out now and tv shows, we see how some reflect how Citizen Kane was made-with a mystery for the entire movie, but ending up with the solution being shown at the beginning. However, I did not even notice that the Rosebud was the sled young Kane was riding until I went back to the beginning since I thought I had missed something.
ReplyDeleteIn respects to Kane loving his second wife, I do believe he did love her. But I also believe he had a tough time showing that love, maybe because he was taken away from his mom early on.
All in all, I did enjoy this movie. It was different in the way that it seemed there was something dramatic always playing out, somewhat scandalous, and made it hard not to follow.
-Alicya Simmons
The ending blew my mind. The entire film was dedicated to find the meaning of Rosebud, and I found myself intrigued by this mystery, what this word could mean for Mr. Kane. Rosebud represented what Mr. Kane wanted the most, a return to his childhood. More importantly, the unconditional love and happiness he had back then. The pursuit of unconditional love is what led Mr. Kane to marry twice and still end up alone in his death bed.
ReplyDeleteThe mystery kept my attention throughout the film, as the film content itself was not that engaging. The plot followed Mr. Kane's life, and at times it felt more like a biography than a mystery film. The way the narrative was filmed and edited though was fascinating.
The narrative style is what warrants its acclaim, it was a novel way of portraying a biography, and is telling of future Hollywood documentary style.
I didn’t really enjoy this film, but I still could appreciate it. I think that my dislike of the film stems from the character, Kane. As a person, I didn’t really like him nor his actions. I think that Welles portrayed him well, but I just didn’t like the choices he made. Especially when he left his first wife for his second one in order to save face in the newspapers. I thought that was a really dumb move on his part. Kane to me always seemed to be missing something. He was always searching for something that, not to be a cliché, that money can’t buy. He tried to buy people love, and doing so through influencing their opinions. That move just didn’t sirt right with me at all.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do agree with Dima. I like the way Welles created the biography. His choices in in characters and moments of Kane’s life, and the way he told them, was well done. That was the part I enjoyed the most about the film.
I think Citizen Kane should be respected, but the greatest movie of all time is a pessimistic title to give it. Pessimistic in the sense that it has no faith in the future of movies; Citizen Kane was the first in many regards, which does make it significant, but being the first does not mean being the best.
ReplyDeleteOf course, I think the film is boring. When I saw it in high school, it was boring because of it's slow pacing. Now I honestly think it's boring because it's unimaginative. It certainly feels weird and entitled to call Orson Welles' work unimaginative, considering what a respected person he is and was. However, like I said, Citizen Kane was a first. I see it as cliche because that movie is where the cliches came from! The idea of being disillusioned with a capitalist search for money, a goal that was thrust upon Kane from a young age (like the rest of us in America) is such a well-trod area that I might as well throw Citizen Kane on top of the heaping pile of similar works that are beginning to reek. Citizen Kane should be studied and remembered by film enthusiasts and students, but otherwise it is largely unimpressive and unimportant.
I saw this film years ago as a child, and remember my mom enthusiastically telling me how it was "a beautifully mastered movie." As a kid, I didn't understand what she meant and thought it was very boring for an 8 year old. Seeing it again over 20 years later I finally understand what my mom meant. Throughout the film I felt very sorry for Kane. For me, I saw right through his bold and charismatic personality. Knowing he was given away by his mother, and seeing the reaction on his face, I could only view Kane from a lens of him as a little boy. As happy, powerful, and successful as he appeared to be on the outside, I knew underneath that was not the case. While already knowing the ending before I watched Citizen Kane this time around, this time it felt like I was watching it for the first time. I found myself identifying with it, which to me was very interesting. My childhood were some of the happiest days of my life, and it was very easy back then. But it also showed that the little boy we saw in the beginning of the film was still there in the end when Kane died.
ReplyDeleteI thought the film was an incredible depiction of aspirational imaging versus reality. Kane embodies the American Dream. We see a man come from nothing and become a successful businessman. To the public, his life was what they were working towards. Because to them the life he was living was seen as guaranteed happiness and fulfillment. What Welles shows is that this life Kane is living does not guarantee that.
Charlotte Mays-
Delete(Not sure why my name didn't show up)
This movie was an absolute masterpiece. This shows a man who fell from the sky. He had more money and influence than just about anybody -- from the beginning life to his end, he tried to get more and more love from everyone. He needed that acceptance. However, he wanted love from the masses -- just about everyone else. Despite people loving him and caring for him, he never thought that was enough. This movie was very well crafted and executed. While the plot was a bit slow (especially in the beginning), I very much enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this movie. It is possibly my favorite one that I have watched so far for this course. This could be because there are striking similarities between the current presidential administration and the governor position stressed in the movie. I loved the way that the director was able to portray Citizen Kane and the power he holds. The director also wove a metaphor of what we should value and what is superficial. Beyond just the impressive filmatic elements in this film, I thought there were many insightful lessons that the viewer could learn. This is true as the director emphasizes the best parts of Kanes life were during his childhood, before all of his wealth and prosperity.
ReplyDeleteDespite the slow start, I was in no way bored by this film. Rather, I was drawn in to the compelling story that was developing.
I have always heard of this movie and its greatness, but never had taken the time to actually watch it. I'm extremely glad this class spurred me to watch this masterpiece of film medium. The parallels today are extremely evident and the story is a timeless American tale, one that historians will refer to in my opinion when we look back at the United States' rise as a super power and the foundations that were set in pre-World War II America. Kane represents everything that Americans aspire to be and lives the quintessential early 20th century lifestyle, that is until it all comes crashing down. This non-method of story telling is also extremely influential and its descendants can be seen in contemporary films and storytelling.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Schilke
I deeply enjoyed this movie. I liked the format of going back in time from the newsreel with the flashbacks and piecing together Kane's life through other people's stories rather than showing it in a linear fashion. I think we got a better sense of who Kane was as a person and the real pain of his fall from grace being able to see it coming through the entire film. Instead of wondering how his story ends, I spent the whole movie watching him inch closer to an empthy end, which felt a lot more poignant. In terms of having loved his wives, I think he did in a way, although not necessarily in a healthy one. He loved the way that they made him feel about himself, and at least for the beginning of the relationships he did seem to genuinely enjoy their company. However, I'm not sure Kane was ever really capable of a deeper love. It seemed that he always needed to be needed, and resented people wanting to stand on their own, which is wildly unhealthy, and arguably not really love the way that most people mean it.
ReplyDelete-Carol Neuhardt
I enjoyed how this movie was one of the first of it's kind to criticize the American Dream, showing that no matter how much wealth you acquire from working hard to get out of poverty, sometimes the greatest happiness comes from small joys and childhood. I enjoyed analyzing the symbols in the movie, which were like a mystery, however, I occasionally got bored with the characters, as Kane is unlikeable to say the least. I can see why Citizen Kane is considered one of the greatest movies ever made, however, in terms of making a lasting impact on me, I don't think it will have this effect.
ReplyDeleteSabrina Barton