Where you left your keys ...Rick's Cafe Americain

The first time I saw Citizen Kane I was probably somewhere between 10-12 years old.  My parents were going to watch it on video and they told me that it was an “adult” movie and that I’d probably be bored.  Well that, of course, guaranteed I would watch (I have always wondered if my parents were using reverse psychology on me there), but I still was expecting to be bored.  Instead, I was absolutely enthralled.  To be able to watch a movie like Citizen Kane for the first time without the burden of expectations or knowledge was a truly wonderful thing.

I may have seen part or all of Citizen Kane one more time in between, but it certainly had been many years since I had seen it and I was curious to see my reaction to it with the full burden of memories, expectations and Rick’s take.  I was enthralled again.  Citizen Kane fully deserves its laudatory status in the annals of filmmaking.

The cinematography in Citizen Kane is amazing.  Welles use of light and camera angle is far more technically and artistically accomplished than the vast majority of movies made today with the benefit of modern techniques and knowledge.  Citizen Kane deserves consideration as a great movie on this basis alone.

I found the story of a man with nearly limitless amounts of money, who sets out to change and mold the world with a “I don’t care what other people think” attitude (because he expects everyone will eventually think what he thinks and, later, what he tells them to think), but painfully learns that he does care when he discovers the limitations of his power and influence, to be engrossing and fascinating.  It is not told in a traditionally dramatic fashion and lacks the sappy Hollywood happy ending.  Some might interpret this as a weakness as the movie does not “flow” in the way one typically expects a movie to, but I view this as a great strength.  It is easy to follow the traditional formulaic pattern of a dramatic movie, but Citizen Kane disrupts us and challenges our expectations, while not losing any of its power.  That is talent.

The acting is also excellent.  Welles is magnificent and the rest of the cast is, for the most part, strong.  The only possible criticism of Welles’ acting is that, at twenty-five, he didn’t fully pull of Kane in his later years. 

I also found Citizen Kane to be remarkably timely, with many modern parallels.  For example, the examination of a media mogul (modeled on William Randolph Hearst) is relevant to considerations today of media titans such as Murdoch and Bloomberg.  The corrupt and unscrupulous Boss Gettys’ use of Kane’s affair to topple his run for governor—with Kane believing, incorrectly, that the people wouldn’t care—brought to mind the Clinton witch-hunt.  And Kane’s retreat to his reclusive fantasy world of Xanadu still only scratches the surface of the King of Pop.  Also, Welles’ examination of the degree to which money, power and the media can dictate what people think is relevant to this year’s election.  Welles suggests that while people can be greatly influenced by such things, there is a point where “the people” will see through the bullshit, but that those who spout it often fail to realize this point exists (let’s hope Welles is right).

It was also interesting to watch this movie with the knowledge of who or what Rosebud is/was (if you haven’t seen Citizen Kane, don’t worry, I’m not telling).  Watching Citizen Kane as a child, I remember going “Ah ha” when Rosebud was revealed and feeling that it completed the movie and made sense.  Watching it a second time, knowing who or what Rosebud is/was and, thereby, knowing the parable Welles is telling actually made the movie more profound.  Welles’ depiction of what a man of tremendous power and influence misses, regrets and longs for on his death bed is quite powerful. 

To be fair to the critics, there are a few instances in the movie where it drags a bit and I can see how someone could get bored if they were not focused in on or engaged in the movie and didn’t particularly care about the movie’s artistic elements.  Also, we never fully understand why Kane “losses it” to the degree to which he does, but, then again, does anyone understand why Howard Hughes or Michael Jackson became such wackos?  Answering that question, it seems to me, is beyond what we can reasonably as of Welles.  One might the depiction is unrealistic, but for the fact that real life icons of power, wealth and influence have made Charles Foster Kane look quite balanced in comparison. 

I am not going to argue that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time.  I don’t believe in such a thing as an objectively “greatest” movie.  But because of the combination of a great story, a non-formulaic style of telling it, tremendous technical and artistic quality, relevance 60+ years later and influence on future filmmakers, Citizen Kane absolutely deserves to be on any all time Top Ten list and gets the rare 5 stars (out of 4) on Signor Ferrari’s rating system (description forthcoming).

The first time I saw Citizen Kane I was probably somewhere between 10-12 years old.  My parents were going to watch it on video and they told me that it was an “adult” movie and that I’d probably be bored.  Well that, of course, guaranteed I would watch (I have always wondered if my parents were using reverse psychology on me there), but I still was expecting to be bored.  Instead, I was absolutely enthralled.  To be able to watch a movie like Citizen Kane for the first time without the burden of expectations or knowledge was a truly wonderful thing.

I may have seen part or all of Citizen Kane one more time in between, but it certainly had been many years since I had seen it and I was curious to see my reaction to it with the full burden of memories, expectations and Rick’s take.  I was enthralled again.  Citizen Kane fully deserves its laudatory status in the annals of filmmaking.

The cinematography in Citizen Kane is amazing.  Welles use of light and camera angle is far more technically and artistically accomplished than the vast majority of movies made today with the benefit of modern techniques and knowledge.  Citizen Kane deserves consideration as a great movie on this basis alone.

I found the story of a man with nearly limitless amounts of money, who sets out to change and mold the world with a “I don’t care what other people think” attitude (because he expects everyone will eventually think what he thinks and, later, what he tells them to think), but painfully learns that he does care when he discovers the limitations of his power and influence, to be engrossing and fascinating.  It is not told in a traditionally dramatic fashion and lacks the sappy Hollywood happy ending.  Some might interpret this as a weakness as the movie does not “flow” in the way one typically expects a movie to, but I view this as a great strength.  It is easy to follow the traditional formulaic pattern of a dramatic movie, but Citizen Kane disrupts us and challenges our expectations, while not losing any of its power.  That is talent.

The acting is also excellent.  Welles is magnificent and the rest of the cast is, for the most part, strong.  The only possible criticism of Welles’ acting is that, at twenty-five, he didn’t fully pull of Kane in his later years. 

I also found Citizen Kane to be remarkably timely, with many modern parallels.  For example, the examination of a media mogul (modeled on William Randolph Hearst) is relevant to considerations today of media titans such as Murdoch and Bloomberg.  The corrupt and unscrupulous Boss Gettys’ use of Kane’s affair to topple his run for governor—with Kane believing, incorrectly, that the people wouldn’t care—brought to mind the Clinton witch-hunt.  And Kane’s retreat to his reclusive fantasy world of Xanadu still only scratches the surface of the King of Pop.  Also, Welles’ examination of the degree to which money, power and the media can dictate what people think is relevant to this year’s election.  Welles suggests that while people can be greatly influenced by such things, there is a point where “the people” will see through the bullshit, but that those who spout it often fail to realize this point exists (let’s hope Welles is right).

It was also interesting to watch this movie with the knowledge of who or what Rosebud is/was (if you haven’t seen Citizen Kane, don’t worry, I’m not telling).  Watching Citizen Kane as a child, I remember going “Ah ha” when Rosebud was revealed and feeling that it completed the movie and made sense.  Watching it a second time, knowing who or what Rosebud is/was and, thereby, knowing the parable Welles is telling actually made the movie more profound.  Welles’ depiction of what a man of tremendous power and influence misses, regrets and longs for on his death bed is quite powerful. 

To be fair to the critics, there are a few instances in the movie where it drags a bit and I can see how someone could get bored if they were not focused in on or engaged in the movie and didn’t particularly care about the movie’s artistic elements.  Also, we never fully understand why Kane “losses it” to the degree to which he does, but, then again, does anyone understand why Howard Hughes or Michael Jackson became such wackos?  Answering that question, it seems to me, is beyond what we can reasonably as of Welles.  One might the depiction is unrealistic, but for the fact that real life icons of power, wealth and influence have made Charles Foster Kane look quite balanced in comparison. 

I am not going to argue that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time.  I don’t believe in such a thing as an objectively “greatest” movie.  But because of the combination of a great story, a non-formulaic style of telling it, tremendous technical and artistic quality, relevance 60+ years later and influence on future filmmakers, Citizen Kane absolutely deserves to be on any all time Top Ten list and gets the rare 5 stars (out of 4) on Signor Ferrari’s rating system (description forthcoming).