"Citizen Kane" Discussion: 6/09/02 - 6/15/02

[Morticia]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "Citizen Kane."

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. We are excited and we hope this works (we're open to any ideas of how to make it better).

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[Dom]

< a-hem>.



So... anybody actually seen this flick?

[Johnny Airplane]

Seen it, but feel that everything that could be said about it (at least as far as any of us are concerned) were pointed out already by Mr. Ebert is his fine commentary on the Citizen Kane DVD. Anything I said would simply be taken from him, so really, what's the point.

On a note of trivia, however, Orson Welles said once that he felt his best film was "The Trial" with Anthony Perkins. Of course, at one time or another, he's also claimed other films of his to be "his best." So, who's to say what he thought.

Johnny Airplane

[Avid]

This was wheeled out every year at film school and shown to us. My father thought that was funny because when he was at University, they showed it every year to his class. (Incidentally, my parents where at U of I when Roger Ebert was.)

I think I am the only person I know who actually likes this film. One of my criteria is a film has to move me in some way. If I don't react to a movie, I write it off as doing nothing for me. Most films will make me laugh, make me feel good, fire me up or have some sort of exhilarating feeling. Not so with Citizen Kane. Every time I see it, I feel subtly uneasy and depressed. I start thinking about my mortality and how I will probably not be remembered in history. This film does not leave me with an "up" feeling, but I like it because it is so thought provoking. What does a human life mean? Will we matter to anyone a few decades after we die? William Hearst was the Bill Gates of his day, and until I saw the documentary with the DVD his name meant nothing to me.

Before the AFI list came out, I used to tell people Citizen Kane was my favorite film. After it topped the list I stopped saying that because it seemed so cliche. If I was to be put on a deserted with only one movie I would chose Citizen Kane because I think it would hold my interest longer than any other films. One of the things I love about it is you can pick any angle to watching it and it is near perfect: writing, structure, acting, editing, photography.

It is amazing to think that this film was twenty years ahead of its time. Mise-en-scene is attributed to Welles, the structure is extraordinary, and the sound work is innovative. Citizen Kane influenced many notable filmmakers that followed.

Roger Ebert's commentary helped me understand why this film tops critics list year after year. Not only is the film a masterpiece, it represents an ideal to filmmakers: complete control. Ebert's commentary also pointed out Citizen Kane has so many special effects. Who would have thunk, it is the Star Wars of its day.

[Morticia]

I actually sat down and watched this all the way through for the first time last night.

Since I'm going off of memory, you'll have to forgive me for not knowing exact details or technical terms....and I'll likely think of more later.

Anyway....A few things I noticed in particular were what Avid mentioned....the scene dissolves and special effects. Often a scene would be played in the 'foreground' - his second wife discussing how she left him, for instance, and in the 'background' you'd see part of the scene she describes. There are a lot of scenes that play out this way....considering this was made in 1941 the effect was not widely used....perhaps never used before. (I didn't have time to watch the commentaries, this may be mentioned....)

There were some fisheye-type effects used with the snowglobe and other reflecting effects. Even though there were many such moments where I thought, "Gee, I don't think they used THAT effect before this film", I didn't think it was like some "guy" put together a film just to show off the neato camera effects he learned. As Avid said as well, this film will move you...

I'm not sure how much the Radio days inspired or influenced Welles' filmmaking. This is an intensely visual film! I noticed how all the shots that were taking place in Kane's mansion, Xanadu, showed vast amounts of empty space, usually shot long with Kane standing alone. A reference to Kane's empty life.....

[DrDetroit]

Originally posted by Morticia
I'm not sure how much the Radio days inspired or influenced Welles' filmmaking. This is an intensely visual film! I noticed how all the shots that were taking place in Kane's mansion, Xanadu, showed vast amounts of empty space, usually shot long with Kane standing alone. A reference to Kane's empty life.....

I think his radio career had a great impact on his films, this one in particular. There are great audio cues, the one that comes to mind is Marion Davies' (or whoever she is) high pitched voice being transformed into a kettle. That's a great effect.

My favourite bits of this movie are Joseph Cotten's performance, the opening newsreel, and the Boss Jim W. Gettys speech.

[Welles and Ford Fan]

Whew...where to start. I have always loved Kane. I am 45 now, and grew up seeing movies on TV that were primarily made before 1970. I think I was 15 or so when I first saw Kane, and its uniqueness stood out strongly against the typical Hollywood fare.

Many of its effects still impress me with their boldness (at least in comparison with the films of that time): the loud "in your face" shock of the "News on the March" fake documentary; the "home movie" footage of Kane in his later years; the Rashomon-like story-telling of the same story from multiple points of view; the overlapping dialogue; the performance of a 25-year old Welles of a man from age 25 to 70; the aforementioned scene and sound dissolves. Some of my favorites (and these may be mentioned by Ebert in the commentary-don't know 'cos I haven't played it all): in the opening shots of Xanadu, as the camera inches closer, the source of light from the window is constantly in the center of the frame, even when Xanadu is shown upside-down in reflection; in the "breakfast montage", the figures of Kane and his wife blend into the figures of other patients at the sanitarium; the sound of Kane appaluding Susan's pathetic attempt at Rossini dissolves into the sound of applause at a political rally where Joseph Cotten is stumping for Kane, and Cotten's speech dissolves into Kane's speech. Another great sound fade-when Kane shouts "I'm gonna send you to Sing Sing, Gettys-Sing Sing!", the second "Sing" at the end blends into the sound of a traffic horn as Gettys shuts the door. It took me several viewings to catch that one.

This is a rich and brilliant film which "broke all the rules" when it was made. Those who haven't seen it, or have seen it only once-watch it, and drink in Gregg Toland's beautiful deep focus photography. See if you can discover other "effects" not mentioned here. And see if, at the end, you don't echo the reporter who "can't help feeling sorry for Mr Kane".

One way this movie stands the test of time for me-I have seen it dozens of times (at least), and I have never tired of it. o know I could watch it at least twice in succesion. If I merely start the film to look at the opening scene, I am hooked, and will likely watch the whole thing again. It's not necessarily my favorite film, or even my favorite Welles film, but it certainly deserves (IMO) its place at the top of all the "greatest" lists for its ingenuity and daring and beauty and its ability to entertain.

Edit-try to avoid the "Battle Over Citizen Kane" documentary on the second disc. It comes off as liitle more than the story of a kindly newspaper tycoon (the ruthless "yellow" journalist Wm Randolph Hearst) whose reputation was hurt by a mean-spirited film made by a young Orson Welles-a filmmaker who never made anything else good because no one wnated to work for him because he was a jerk. Never mind that Welles also made several more stunning films-some which may (or may not) be even better than Kane.

[Jivebot]

Welles and Ford Fan, well done: you have succinctly and enjoyably expressed what I would have said. The visual and audio links you note are something I have not detected previously; now I want to play the disc again.

Likewise, whenever the beginning of the film plays I want to sit down and watch the whole thing, knowing what good stuff is going to follow. My age is close to your own and much of my love of film stems from what I could catch as a youth in front of the tube. In college and post graduation I spent many hours traveling to the LA County Museum of Art for retrospectives, or searching out revival houses so as to see those movies I fell in love with. With dvd, I can own in virtually indestructable form so many of the films I enjoyed.

But to Kane: is it my favorite film? It's probably in a three way tie for third. But it never ceases to amaze me. The story telling is within a single film both brash and subtle, first telling us and then showing us, dropping cinematic hints, jarring us with sudden visuals and sounds (the bird's eye double exposure, the scream of a woman in the aural background at the beach party, and so on), and treating us to what sometimes amounts to a filmed play(note how sometimes, as has been observed, we appear to be watching the film from front row center, thanks to up tilted camera shots).

The film does bear multiple viewings, looking for hints and clues in the cluttered sets (see the snow ball dome on Susan Alexander's dressing table when Kane first meets her?). The acting of all the Mercury Theatre personnel is the result of stage experience and the high quality of the radio broadcasts. But it is Welles' concious or unconcious mixture of stage acting with the mechanics of camera and film that sets Kane apart.

If there is a fault, it is that there is no sympathy for the character of Kane. Is there pity? Welles plays Kane as monster born of abandonment, literal and emotional: he wants to be loved, but on his own terms. He can't love or won't love, having lost his mother/been rejected by his mother as a boy. When he dies, we don't feel sorrow for the lonely old man: we never embrace him to ourselves for his meglomanical control over everything and everyone.

Favorite part of Citizen Kane: watching a 25 year-old call all the shots, aging from youth to elderly tycoon without a misstep, and letting the fun of it all come across the screen to us.

[renots]

...between the SE DVD and the Criterion LaserDisc? Its been a while since I rented the LaserDisc, but I seem to recall Susan Alexander's singing as being more tragically bad while on the DVD its quite passable, which kind of contradicts the plot but makes for a much warmer less bleak film experience. I wonder if it would have been such a box office disaster if Welles had gone with the less realistic but more audience friendly DVD soundtrack.

[SolidSnakeASS]

It is the exact same soundtrack, and in fact, her singing isn't so bad. I was always confused by that, but you can hear that she is missing a couple notes hear and there. I always thought it was her 'acting' that people were complaining about, if you remember Leland's review.


I love Citizen Kane, and I made the mistake of screening this film for friends. They just didn't get it; Kane is just a film that needs to be seen several times, and unfortunately most people that dislike it off the bat don't want to see it again. The first time I saw it, I was a little disapointed, since the hype surrounding it is over-bearing. By the second and third viewing I could appreciate it for the masterpiece it is. I don't think they will ever be another film that could top it, although many have come close.

[tomdkat]

Here is a description of this film from Netflix:

Originally Posted by Netflix

Orson Welles reinvented movies at the age of 26 with this audacious biography of newspaper baron Charles Foster Kane (in essence, a thinly veiled portrait of publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst), who rises from poverty to become one of America's most influential men. A complex and technically stunning film, Citizen Kane is considered one of the best movies ever made.

If it's true Citizen Kane is considered one of the best movies ever made, why is that?

Peace...

[raptors661]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Here is a description of this film from Netflix:

If it's true Citizen Kane is considered one of the best movies ever made, why is that?

Peace...

i found it to be REALLY boring. i was waiting for something interesting to happen, but it never did. i never saw why people think this is the best movie ever made. i understand that it used transitions and angles not used before in film, but that doesnt make it great.

[Maximum Jonah]

This is my all time favourite movie. Why?

There are many reasons for me:

The age when Welles made this movie, having complete control from beginning to end.

As mentioned, the camera angles and lighting. So rare in American cinema at that time.

The dialogue, witty, sharp, funny, absolutely despairing. It still holds up today.

Ultimately the storyline. Kane for me was a character, that I identified with at first, cheered as a young man, dismissing his guardian, and doing what he felt like. But that begins to change; absolute powers corrupts absolutely. It shows. Kane changes from a championing hero that one can identify with, to an overbearing tyrant with no regard for reality. He began to create one for himself, shutting out his love, and friends and us in the process.

But there are glimpses of the child within; the "Rosebud" reference comes back a couple of times in the movie, and ultimately in the end, when Kane realizes (finally) that the only joy in his life was when he was with his sled, sliding fast and free. A time of innocence and freedom where he was alone and not under anyone's thumb or in control of his elements. He was just free...

Then there is the fight behind the scenes, as when Hearst found out about "Kane" and used his influence to try to bury the film, and destroy Welles career.

Remember, this movie couldn't find a distributor for a good while, and was basically ignored when it came to the Academy Awards. It only won for Best Cinematography, and Best Original Screenplay. It was actually booed by the audience, whenever its name was announced.

Finally, there is Welles himself. The eerie fact that Kane somewhat foreshadows Welles life as it came to be (the inadequecy for love, the struggle for power, and friendship, a search for that perfect feeling) is as watching a car crash in slow motion.

A newspaper film critic told Welles after seeing "Kane", "Quit son, you'll never do anything better..."

Imagine, to peak at such an early age. There's a long descent ahead of him, and to me it's unthinkable.

Lastly, I'll close with another great reason why I love this movie, and it's stigma so much. There is a rumour that Welles was on an elevator when the doors parted, and there stood Hearst. He entered and the two mentioned exchanged nary a word. When the car came to his floor, and Welles departed, he said without turning around, "Kane would have watched it..."

And so ends my reasoning for this being a spectactular film to me, and why it always will hold a number one aura of excellence in my being.