What are they talking about (Citizen Kane (DVD))

Member Name: dave27

Product:	Citizen Kane (DVD)
Date:	09/07/04 (355 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Welles, the shooting

Disadvantages: Overrated, dull

Citizen Kane is all about mysteries and riddles, with dark hints and subtle nuance. As the film commences, the newspaper magnate, Charles Foster Kane, lies dying, and utters as his last mortal word ?Rosebud?? kicking off a quest to find out what he meant by it, as the film backtracks and works through the story of his life, in search of the truth.

However, there is a far deeper and much more intriguing mystery, and that is exactly why this quirky little film has generated such critical acclaim, such that it is rated by many knowledgeable critics as the best film ever made. And that really is the crux of the entire problem with Citizen Kane. Because it?s so widely lauded, one goes into the viewing with the expectation of something really stupendous and awe inspiring, yet what you actually get is something quite feeble by comparison.

I once sat down to watch it to see exactly what the fuss was all about. When it started I felt bored, but consoled myself that something would improve and that I should stick with it. As time dragged on and it went into classic documentary narrative approach, I continued to wait with expectation for the touch of majesty and wonder, but unfortunately it never arrived and I was left wondering exactly what the whole point was.

I'm sorry, but I have to tell you this film is dull and vastly overrated and I cannot for the life of me, see what the fuss is for. I can see that the style is ace, that the idea is attractive and that technically it may be innovative and ahead of its time, but it now just feels like an overlong, boring, black and white film.

The Filmsite website (http://www.filmsite.org/citi.html) lists Kane among its favourite 100 films of all time, and has this to say:

?The fresh, sophisticated, and classic masterpiece, Citizen Kane (1941), is probably the world's mo
st famous and highly-rated film, with its many remarkable scenes and performances, cinematic and narrative techniques and experimental innovations (in photography, editing, and sound). Its director, star, and producer were all the same genius individual - Orson Welles (in his film debut at age 25!), who collaborated with Herman J. Mankiewicz on the script (and also with an uncredited John Houseman), and with Gregg Toland as his talented cinematographer. [The amount of each person's contributions to the screenplay has been the subject of great debate over many decades.] Toland's camera work on Karl Freund's expressionistic horror film Mad Love (1935) exerted a profound influence on this film. The film, budgeted at $800,000, received unanimous critical praise even at the time of its release, although it was not a commercial success (partly due to its limited distribution and delayed release by RKO due to pressure exerted by famous publisher W.R. Hearst) - until it was re-released after World War II, found well-deserved (but delayed) recognition in Europe, and then played on television. The film engendered controversy (and efforts at suppression in early 1941) because it appeared to fictionalize and caricaturize certain events and individuals in the life of William Randolph Hearst, a powerful newspaper magnate and publisher, and the film drew remarkable, unflattering, and uncomplimentary parallels (especially in regards to the Susan Alexander Kane character). The notorious battle was detailed in Thomas Lennon's and Michael Epstein's Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1996), and it was retold in HBO's cable-TV film RKO 281 (1999)?

Now, I?m sorry, chaps, but you?re not actually telling me why you
think this film is so good. In fact, I get the feel that there?s a bit of a conspiracy going on here: one eminent film critic hints that he thinks this is a really good film; critic No 2, fearful that No 1 has seen something he has missed, hastily leaps aboard the bandwagon and increases the hyperbole; critic No 3, eager to show how clever he is, identifies some nifty little things which appeals to him, and, hey presto, we?re away with the Legend that never was and a MYTH is born?

The Chicago Sun Times (http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/kane.ht ml) has Roger Ebert waxing lyrical: ?It is one of the miracles of cinema that in 1941 a first-time director; a cynical, hard-drinking writer; an innovative cinematographer, and a group of New York stage and radio actors were given the keys to a studio and total control, and made a masterpiece. ``Citizen Kane'' is more than a great movie; it is a gathering of all the lessons of the emerging era of sound, just as ``Birth of a Nation'' assembled everything learned at the summit of the silent era, and ``2001'' pointed the way beyond narrative. These peaks stand above all the others ? There is a master image in ``Citizen Kane'' you might easily miss. The tycoon has overextended himself and is losing control of his empire. After he signs the papers of his surrender, he turns and walks into the back of the shot. Deep focus allows Welles to play a trick of perspective. Behind Kane on the wall is a window that seems to be of average size. But as he walks toward it, we see it is further away and much higher than we thought. Eventually he stands beneath its lower sill, shrunken and diminished. Then as he walks toward us, his stature grows again. A man always seems the same size to himself, because he does not stand where we stand to look at hi
m.?

Still, there are no clues as to the reason for all of this tomfoolery. Mood, atmosphere and style, all of which Citizen Kane drips with from all of its pores, can take you a long way, but they are not enough in themselves, and there must be more here to this, for so many people to speak so highly of their subject, but for the life of me I cannot track down the essence of Kane and the reason why it is seen as being more than just a lengthy old black and white film.

Orson Welles was an innovative, unique and visionary maker of films ? his War of the Worlds meisterwork and project proved that, but Citizen Kane is always quoted as being the really important film, the deep and symbolic REAL THING.

Like a slippery fish, however, the secret continues to elude me ? perhaps that is the secret, that there is no secret, and in trying to fathom it, you?re doing the same thing as the investigator within the film. No, you?re talking bunkum once more?

The script:

PROLOGUE

FADE IN:

EXT. XANADU - FAINT DAWN - 1940 (MINIATURE)

Window, very small in the distance, illuminated.

All around this is an almost totally black screen. Now, as the camera moves slowly towards the window which is almost a postage stamp in the frame, other forms appear; barbed wire, cyclone fencing, and now, looming up against an early morning sky, enormous iron grille work. Camera travels up what is now shown to be a gateway of gigantic proportions and holds on the top of it - a huge initial "K" showing darker and darker against the dawn sky. Through this and beyond we see the fairy-tale mountaintop of Xanadu, the great castle a sillhoue
tte as its summit, the little window a distant accent in the darkness.

DISSOLVE:

(A SERIES OF SET-UPS, EACH CLOSER TO THE GREAT WINDOW, ALL TELLING SOMETHING OF:)

The literally incredible domain of CHARLES FOSTER KANE.

Its right flank resting for nearly forty miles on the Gulf Coast, it truly extends in all directions farther than the eye can see. Designed by nature to be almost completely bare and flat - it was, as will develop, practically all marshland when Kane acquired and changed its face - it is now pleasantly uneven, with its fair share of rolling hills and one very good-sized mountain, all man-made. Almost all the land is improved, either through cultivation for farming purposes of through careful landscaping, in the shape of parks and lakes. The castle dominates itself, an enormous pile, compounded of several genuine castles, of European origin, of varying architecture - dominates the scene, from the very peak of the mountain.


More endless self delusion from the Citizen Kane pocket industry ? let?s talk this thing up, there?s a career somewhere in all this for someone ? worthy critics and their worthy opinions ? it?s a bit like the Star Wars myth, apart from the absence of a substantial and watchable film at its core?

I?m sort for the lengthy quotes and the endless excerpts of other people?s work, but honestly they are necessary to bring home how much has been made of this film, and the way a legend has developed, running helter skelter to scream at heaven ? now, there I go, talking so much bul
l, like all the other mischief makers ?

I?ve probably wasted much more air space already than is merited by this film ? it can be encapsulated much more simply?

Citizen Kane is an anachronism, an interesting artefact, but is no more worthy of your interest and attention than a Tom and Jerry cartoon, but spends ages trying to prove otherwise and has convinced enough suckers to breathe life into a moribund legend ? Rosebud? Take your eccentricity elsewhere, my liege?

The American Experience (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kane2/): ?Citizen Kane was a brutal portrait of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. When Hearst learned through Hopper of Welles' film, he set out to protect his reputation by shutting the film down. Hollywood executives, led by Louis B. Mayer, rallied around Hearst, attempting to buy Citizen Kane in order to burn the negative. At the same time, Hearst's defenders moved to intimidate exhibitors into refusing to show the movie. Threats of blackmail, smears in the newspapers, and FBI investigations were used in the effort. Hearst's campaign was largely successful. It would be nearly a quarter-century before Citizen Kane was revived--before Welles would gain popular recognition for having created one of cinema's great masterpieces.?

Ah, at last, a bit of insight. The issue is that Welles? subject matter objected to being portrayed in this way and tried to close down his opponent. Now, that might be the secret, mightn?t it? Well, it might well be, but still, I remain to be convinced by a tepid mystery which promises more than it delivers?

Perhaps if Hearst hadn?t stoked up all that fear then CK might never have become so notorious and neither might he?

Anyway, enough is enough ? good evening
campers?

Summary: