Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Citizen Kane (1941) ***

220px-Citizenkane

(This is my contribution to the CMBA’s Fabulous Films of the 1940s Blogathon. For more contributions check out this link: http://clamba.blogspot.com/)

What can be said here that hasn’t already been said about director Orson Welles’ masterpiece, Citizen Kane (1941)? Probably nothing.  It is, after all, considered by countless critics to be the greatest film ever made.  As indicated by my three out of four star rating, I obviously do not share that opinion.  However, as a student of film I know that Citizen Kane is one of the most important movies ever made.  The complete destruction of 314601-citizen-kanenarrative continuity and cinematographic “rules” demands that this film be recognized as the creator of modern cinema. 

Welles was only twenty-four when he starred in, co-wrote, and directed Citizen Kane; his first feature film. His innovative stage and radio productions with the Mercury Theatre group propelled him into the national spotlight—particularly after the infamous The War of the Worlds broadcast caused panic across America.  He was courted by Hollywood and eventually RKO landed him. Never having helmed a motion picture in his life, he was given complete and absolute freedom to make two films of his choosing for the studio.  That was a lot of power to give to such a young and inexperienced director—especially one with an ego the size of Texas.  As such, many RKO studio executives were plagued by chronic migraines throughout the entire production.

Of course, it didn’t help that the script crafted by Welles xanaduconstructioncitizenkaneand Herman J. Mankiewicz mimicked (and some would say lampooned) the life of one of the most powerful men in America: William Randolph Hearst. Was Charles Foster Kane a thinly veiled stand-in for the real-life publishing magnate? If you believe Welles, the answer is no. He once wrote that the “only purely Hearstian element in Citizen Kane” was Kane’s publishing machinations regarding the orchestration of  the onset of the Spanish American War.  Yet, Mankiewicz had been a frequent guest at countless Hearst parties and was friends with members of the family, so he certainly had some insight into the Hearst world. And, any truly unbiased person (or one who had no fear of being sued for libel) can see many parallels between Kane and Hearst.  Surely Kane’s Xanadu was a stand-in for Hearst’s La Cuesta Encantada, and while Marion Davies was obviously more talented than Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore), they were nonetheless paramours who had their careers advanced by two powerful men.  If you’re interested in delving into this more, might I suggest you read John Evangelist Walsh's, Walking Shadows: Orson Welles, William Randolph Hearst, and Citizen Kane.

Whatever one might think about the Hearst/Kane debate, there is no denying that the complex narrative style used by Welles and Mankiewicz was completely original and totally reshaped the views of generations of screenwriters.  Flashback was nothing new for cinema, but Citizen Kane was told in such a non-linear style, employing both flashbacks and flashforwards as well as quick-swipe montages, that it revolutionized screenwriting.  At images (1)one moment a character is young and spry and in the next frame they are old and frail.  There is no explanation of this rapid transition—it is the viewer’s job to put the pieces together.

Which brings me to my favorite thematic element in the film: the jigsaw puzzle. From the moment Kane’s infamous last word, Rosebud, is uttered Citizen Kane becomes a mystery.  Who or what is Rosebud is what sets the story in search of those who knew Kane best, and allows Welles to employ his own unique storytelling vision. Of course, no one knows the answeRosebudCitizenKaner.  Charles Foster Kane was a jigsaw puzzle that was missing at least one piece, and so no one could really know or solve him.  While I won’t spoil the mystery for those who haven’t seen this, I will say that I often cite this plot device to students as one of the most important in modern narrative development. 

Finally, no discussion of Citizen Kane would be complete without mentioning the brilliant cinematography of Gregg Toland and the images (2)cinematic techniques employed by Welles.  Using the Chiaroscuro method of using high-contrast lighting against backlighting, as well as low-key lighting, created an enigmatic and larger-than-life feel to the film and its main character.  High-angle and low-angle shots, along with deep focus, were used in such unique ways that countless books have been written and film seminars still study them in great depth today.  Two particular scenes are stand outs: the showdown between Kane and Leland (Joseph Cotton) after his election loss and the mirror shot at Xanadu.  Toland  had a trench built into the floor to capture his low-angle shots of the dissolution of Kane and Leland’s friendship.  And, Roger Ebert citizen_kane_7and I agree that the most evocative shot in the movie is “the shot showing an infinity of Kanes reflected in mirrors as he walks past” at Xanadu.  Those multiple reflections (with no hint of a camera anywhere) is one of the most brilliant visual images I have ever seen in a movie (this was before CGI). 

Perhaps I haven’t said anything new about Citizen Kane here; I don’t profess to have any new insights into Welles’ vision or Toland’s masterful cinematography. All I can say is this: Citizen Kane is one of the most important films ever made.  No, it didn’t win a Best Picture Oscar or rake in huge receipts at the box office (it actually took a loss), but it revolutionized the art of filmmaking—and for that it should be appreciated and watched. 

34 comments:

  1. Brilliant write up that made me nostalgic. I am a great fan of Welles and his works like Citizen Kane, A Touch of Evil, F for Fake, etc... Citizen Kane will always be very close to my heart. Neither Welles nor his works are very famous in my part of the world. Young adults of my generation who are really fond of contemporary American cinema (especially the likes of Nolan, Spielberg, and Scorsese) may not have even heard of Welles' magnum opus.

    But, I consider myself to be really fortunate to have not only watched it (on multiple occasions) but to have also read a whole lot about it. Even with my very limited knowledge and understanding (about 4 years back when I had watched it for the first time) of cinema I could sense that I had watched something really special... the repeated viewings have only confirmed it.

    Like always, I thoroughly enjoyed reading your review. Once again you have succeeded in offering something new despite your stating otherwise.

    Here's my review of Citizen Kane:

    http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/2012/01/citizen-kane-1941-orson-welles.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, thanks for your kind words. It is interesting to learn that there are places in the world where Welles' work is little known, as he is so revered by so many critics worldwide. I will check your review out.

      Delete
  2. I think I would have to add another star to the rating, because I am one that can find very little to be dissatisfied about when it comes to this film. But - it took me a few viewings to get there. The first time I saw it I thought that Rosebud was a chair burning in that warehouse and my thought was WTF (or something like that)!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FC: I am often tempted to give it that fourth star, but there is something that prevents me. First, I know I have issues with how much is borrowed from Hearst's life. Second, there are acting elements that push me away, too.
      As for Rosebud, I think I had the same reaction too. But, then a light bulb went off on a subsequent viewing and I saw how brilliant this plot device actually was.

      Delete
  3. Kim, I pretty much agree with you. I can watch CITIZEN KANE and appreciate its artistry and technical achievements (indeed, one of Welles' greatest virtues was allowing his crew and actors to collaborate with him). However, it's not a movie that I enjoy nor one that grabs my attention whenever it's on. I think THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS--despite its miscasting and dreadful re-edited ending--is a more engrossing movie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Story-wise I agree, The Magnificent Ambersons is more engrossing. It also has stunning visual elements on par with Citizen Kane.

      Delete
  4. I agree with you Kim -- The Magnificent Ambersons is more engrossing. However, Citizen Kane is important to me because it truly put several actors on the map: Joe Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Ray Collins, George Coulouris, and Paul Stewart went on to have great careers. Welles gave them each a chance to shine and they did!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He was an actor's director. He always knew how to make them shine in their scenes.

      Delete
  5. There is so much to take in about "Citizen Kane" that at times it can be overwhelming. Its place in cinematic history should never be denied and I find myself returning to it again and again. The next time I will be keeping your article in mind to enhance the experience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CW: overwhelming is a good word for this movie. Glad you liked the article.

      Delete
  6. Kim, I really enjoyed reading your review. I'm not really a fan of Welles, but.. I'm very impressed that he was only twenty-four, when he starred and directed Citizen Kane. The classic film, which is often called... "the best motion picture ever made". Maybe, I need to give "Citizen Kane" another viewing..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed the review, Dawn. There is no doubt this is a stylistic masterpiece, but there are some story elements that don't appeal to many.

      Delete
  7. I've never been convinced that this is the "best film ever made", but I do agree it is one of the most important. I watched it again, the other day, and marveled at how the story is told. great cast in this movie, too.

    I'm glad you chose this for the 40s blogathon. You have done this film justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks! You and I have the same feelings about this then.

      Delete
  8. Nice review, Kim. I agree with you throughout. There is no denying the technical, stylistic and acting qualities of the film, but it is a turn off for me when something is proclaimed to be the best movie ever. For the same reason I was rather negative going into The Passion of Joan of Arc. I also hesitate about giving it that final nudge to supreme stardom.
    I had a moment of total embarrasment when I wrote my comments for Citizen Kane. I had failed to notice the "Rosebud" on the toy in the end and so my interpretation of the whole mystery was something entirely different. It was only when fellow bloggers pointed it out to me that I got it. Doh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TS, I think there are many of us who get edgy when a movie is proclaimed the greatest ever. I expect there are many who missed the Rosebud connection the first time they saw this.

      Delete
  9. Visually, this is a stunning film. It's construction, style and feel are breath taking. It's a film that should be required viewing for any serious student of film. That said, for pure pleasure I would rather watch Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL. Of all of Welles films that is my favorite. It may not be his best but I love watching it. My only problem with CITZEN KANE is I find it cold and while I admire it and think it's brilliant film, I do not enjoy watching it too often. After reading some of the other comments here, I see I am not alone in how people feel about this film. Anyway, you did a great job here Kim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm starting to see a theme among these comments. LOL John, you're right, it is a cold film and I think that turns many people away from it. Thanks for the nice comments.

      Delete
  10. As I said in my comment on FB, I have never seen this film. I know it is one of those films every classic film fan (or modern film fan, for that matter) needs to see at least once, so even though it really doesn't appeal to me, I am going to put it on my watch list. Joseph Cotten is my "man of the month" in May, so I am going to make a viewing of "Citizen Kane" a goal for that month.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cotton was a good actor, so you will have fun in May. BTW, it will not be as painful as you think to watch this.

      Delete
  11. Great post, Kim, and kudos for taking on The Big One. I've always wondered why Orson Welles targeted Hearst, even though he said he didn't. I was sure he must've known the parallels were obvious and that Hearst would take offense. I also thought he must've known Hearst would be inclined to retaliate. But as I read your piece I was reminded of Welles' extreme youth when he co-wrote, starred in and directed "Citizen Kane." Just 24 and possibly too young to fully realize what he'd gotten himself into with the powerful press baron. Though I don't consider "Citizen Kane" the greatest of all films (I personally prefer "Ambersons"), I'm happy it was given that distinction in Welles' lifetime - hopefully, that made up for some of what he endured once the film was released.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He did have a big ego, didn't he? Some people pick fights with the wrong people on purpose. I'm sure it didn't help that Mankiewicz had had a front room seat at some Hearst shindigs, either. As always, your feedback is extremely appreciated.

      Delete
  12. I'm also in the camp that does not feel "Kane" is the best movie ever made, but I do marvel at the technical innovations you've mentioned, and I love Gregg Toland's work here and in other films. And it's fun to see the Mercury Players introduced to us. Welles accomplished a great deal with this remarkable film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The technical aspects were very important, but those Mercury Players turned out to be some of the best actors/actresses in the business.

      Delete
  13. Kim, you might not have said anything new about "Citizen Kane" (I doubt that this is even possible), but what you did say was concise, articulately stated, and essential for understanding why this film is considered so important in the history of cinema. Like many, I suppose, the first time I saw "Kane" was in a college film appreciation class, when I was just getting seriously exposed to the masterworks of cinema, and thought it was the best film I'd ever seen. I have seen it many times since then as my acquaintance with films both great and not so great increased, and I have never abandoned that opinion. It was thoughtful of you, considering that you don't hold this film in as high esteem as it has traditionally been held, to concentrate on an objective analysis of its innovations and influence on later filmmakers.

    The screenplay might have been revolutionary for film, but it seems to me to be in the style of the more innovative literature of the early 20th century--with its shifts in time, narrator, and point of view and its emphasis on enigma rather than obvious themes--people like Faulkner, Joyce, and Virginia Woolf.

    Welles's later career seemed to be plagued by procrastination born of his obsessive need to rethink and improve at the editing stage what he had already shot. He revised and delayed so much that most of his later films were taken out of his hands by the studio or the producers, thus giving him the reputation of never being able to complete a project. I think "Kane" must have had something to do with this. It was such a tremendous artistic success that he must have lived in dread that nothing he did later would ever live up to it.

    I know that Pauline Kael always held that the screenplay was responsible for the film's merit (she seemed to have an antipathy to showy directing styles like Welles's). I can't really buy this argument totally because clearly the film wouldn't have the same panache without the presence of Welles and Toland. But she did have an important point, which was that the screenplay was so complete that once Welles decided how to visualize it, there was little way he could tamper with it.

    Anyway, a bold choice for the blogathon (a film I would never have dreamed of attempting) and a great and respectful treatment of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RDF: Thanks so much for your kind words. I was apprehensive about taking it on, but when I didn't see anyone had picked it I knew no great films of the 1940s would be complete without it.

      You make an excellent point about Welles and procrastination. Perhaps the acclaim he received for a masterwork like Citizen Kane did hamper his ability to ever fully complete later projects.

      As for Ms. Kael, she was an unusually unpleasant person who seemed to have her own agenda.

      As always, I appreciate your valued feedback.

      Delete
  14. Kim,
    Before I forget again, I really like your new header. Very eye catching. : )

    On to the review! We've all read a million reviews of Citizen Kane and yes, it's been picked apart a million ways then dissected. With that said, no Blogathon of the 40s would be complete without it being reviewed and I'm so glad you chose it to review.

    I really enjoyed your take on it and you've provided a new look at it which is refreshing. Loved the added info on CK.

    Nicely done!
    Page

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Page: glad you like the new header! Thanks for the nice comments.

      Delete
  15. In addition to its technical prowess, I've always found "Citizen Kane" to be a very entertaining film, and in many ways, a very witty one. Maybe not in terms of dialogue, but with that cinematography and Herrmann's scoring.

    I used to work with a very well known Chicago newspaperman who didn't see it until about 15 years ago, and he thought it was one of the best newspaper movies he had ever seen. He marveled at how funny it was and said he laughed out loud with it (in a good way).

    I think the acting is pretty splendid too. Kim, a beautifully concise look at a cinema landmark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Kevin. A know a few journalists who also think a lot about this.

      Delete
  16. Welles' ego ... I was just discussing this with a friend earlier this week. What he could have done with his career if it had not been for that enormous ego. Still, I've always thought there are two sides to "Citizen Kane": the technical side that film historians, scholars and critics gush about, and the emotional side that can leave audiences a bit cold. I really appreciate the fact that you are honest in your liking but not loving the movie. I was reading a book on Marion Davies who claimed that Hearst and Welles did eventually make up, although she's not the most reliable source. Still, it's an intriguing film, and I love the cast. Thanks for tackling this one!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CFB: that's a pretty accurate view of this film. The story falls a bit short for some, but the technical elements are marvelous.

      Delete
  17. Hi, Kim -- I enjoyed your take on Citizen Kane -- it made me appreciate this movie even more! I agree that the cinematography is first-rate, and that's not usually something I pay a whole lot of attention to, and I also appreciate the non-linear storytelling. I liked the way you took this much-discussed chestnut and breathed new life into the discussion!

    ReplyDelete