The American Masterpiece

Movie Review:
Citizen Kane

1941 / 1 hr., 59 min. / Unrated [PG]

Director: Orson Welles

It has survived decades of competition to remain the touchstone of American cinema, perhaps even world cinema.  It holds first place on the American Film Institute’s One Hundred Greatest Films of all time.  For years it was dissected annually by Roger Ebert at film festivals.  It is a staple of college film courses.  One wonders if there is any reason to add yet another review to the pile of literature surrounding Citizen Kane.

I’ve decided to engage in this potential futility as a feeble attempt to counter the growing sentiment that Citizen Kane is uninteresting.  So many years have elapsed since the film’s creation, and we have been so barraged with an escalating glut of movies in recent years, that laudatory remarks for the film are increasingly relegated to film critics, film students, and industry insiders.  The rest see merely a tired old monochromatic drama and find themselves stifling yawns.

I was once part of the crowd that considered Citizen Kane a dull experience.  I made the mistake of viewing the film for the first time when I was barely twelve or thirteen, renting it simply because I was aware that every budding film maker was supposed to admire it.  I was bored.

Then I saw it again in my early 20's, more informed about film production and (slightly) more mature in my outlook on life.  Suddenly the film was irresistibly gripping, in both its cinematic technique and its philosophical import.  If your first impression of Citizen Kane was lackluster, or if you have yet to bother watching it, please read on for just a small dose of what makes this movie a fascinating study.

Following the classic format of world literature’s greatest tragedies, Citizen Kane explores how a character’s flaws lead him ever deeper into an inescapable despair.  The film opens with Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) alone in a dimly lit bedroom within an expansive estate.  He lies in bed, clutching a snow globe.  He utters one word: “Rosebud”.   Then he dies.

Why a man who rose to tremendous heights of fame and fortune would die so alone, with such an enigmatic final word, is the subject of an investigation by news reporter Jerry Thompson (William Alland).  Kane’s story begins with his childhood at his parents’ boarding home in Colorado where his mother (Agnes Moorhead), in an effort to keep the boy’s legacy out of the hands of her husband, signs her son over to the care of Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris), a banker.  In effect, Kane is adopted by a corporation.

Lacking parental guidance and nurture, Kane becomes a wild and prodigal youth, growing up merely to become an adult version of his adolescent intemperance.  He squanders his inheritance on whatever comes to mind, such as the purchase of a newspaper which he commandeers to print whatever he desires – including stories that may or may not be entirely true.

In line with his impetuous personality, Kane marries twice, first to Emily (Ruth Warrick), a woman who would have made a wonderful wife and mother if Kane had taken the time to notice.  As his marriage begins to bore him, Kane turns to Susan (Dorothy Comingore), a pretty young thing he passes one day, and the affair leads to divorce and the second marriage.  But this marriage collapses also, because although Kane dotes upon Susan to no end – paying for her operatic career and even building the marvelous Xanadu estate just for her – Susan wants real love, something Kane does not understand or know how to give.

It is Kane’s desire to receive and give what he thinks is love that leads to the alienation of everyone who would befriend him.  Lifelong companions desert him, his newspaper empire falters, and his political campaign dissolves in the wake of scandalous activities.  He spends his last days alone in a palatial estate that has nothing to offer him but the echoes of his footsteps.

So why is this film held in such high esteem?  Without re-writing all the books that have covered this question, let me put forth some brief thoughts.  These will perhaps not be in the same order others would propose, but I have my reasons.

First, and perhaps the reason with the least impact, is its notoriety.  Though Orson Welles (The Third Man) never admitted it out loud, it was obvious that he was presenting a thinly disguised and highly scathing biography of newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst: The comparisons between Kane and Hearst are too numerous to be coincidence, and Hearst knew it.  He did everything in his power to ruin Welles and prevent the film’s release, but even his vast fortune and leverage could not stop it from reaching the public.

While that history is interesting, I assign it the lowest significance because Hollywood is regularly churning out films that anger people.  If Citizen Kane had had nothing else in its favor, the publicity inadvertently afforded it by Hearst would not have been enough to sustain its power up to the present day.

Second, and decidedly more amazing, is the fact that this was Welles’ first film.  Given the tremendous skill that even some of the worst directors must possess to get a film finished, Citizen Kane represents an astounding achievement for someone whose previous experience had been entirely in radio and theater, and who was only in his 20's when he began production on the film.

Third, Citizen Kane represents great leaps forward in cinematic creativity.  My guess is that it was Welles’ own inexperience that actually contributed to this ingenuity: He was not bound to the conventions of contemporary cinema because he had never been trained in them, so he did things that went thoroughly against the grain.

This was the man who so successfully imitated emergency news broadcasts in performing The War of the Worlds that he caused real panic among listeners.  In the same way, Welles’ attention to detail enabled him to craft the opening scene in Citizen Kane to mimic the style and idiosyncracies of actual news reels that would play in theaters before the feature.  I remember watching for the first time and being confused by all the “authentic” news footage of a man I was certain was fictional.  I’m fairly sure Welles would have felt satisfaction on hearing that.

The deep-focus lenses, long single shots, double-exposure of the film negative, massive crane movements, and many other techniques we now take for granted were once new, and many of them are now commonplace in modern films precisely because Orson Welles first tried them.  Everything in the film, from the lighting to the editing to the music score (when is Bernard Herrmann not innovative?), is a product of that fertile and undomesticated creativity Welles brought to Hollywood.  Innovations abound, many we are not even aware of when watching.

No single reason supports the film’s status by itself, but my fourth reason holds the most weight in my opinion: It’s a powerful movie!  Certainly we have made vast improvements in film stock, sound recording, editing, and all the other technical aspects of production.  But Citizen Kane rises above its archaic elements by telling a strong and timeless story.

In the same way we suffer as we watch Hamlet lose himself to his vengeful obsession, or feel horror creep over us as we realize the heinous crimes Oedipus the King has unknowingly committed, we watch with sadness as Kane sinks because of his own selfish choices.  He buys a newspaper because it feeds his ego, he marries Susan because it makes him feel good, he lavishes gifts upon her because he wants to feel loved.  Kane is a man who never learns to shed childhood impulse; he is classic self-absorption – Me, Me, Me! – even when he sincerely believes he is doing things for others.

Perhaps a line by Jed Leland (Joseph Cotten) summarizes it best: “You don’t care about anything except you.  You just want to persuade people that you love ‘em so much that they ought to love you back.  Only you want love on your own terms.  It’s something to be played your way according to your rules.”  By the time Kane accepts this (if he ever really does), it is too late.

If you’ve tried Citizen Kane and gave up or dismissed it, or if you’ve never even bothered because it was just “some old movie,” let me encourage you to try it again with these ideas in mind.  Check out some books on Welles’ journey in making the film.  Or, if your reading time is slim, find the DVD edition that features Roger Ebert’s commentary.  Within a compact two hours, Ebert brings up some interesting anecdotes about the making of the film, and points out many of the tricks and techniques that Welles and cinematographer Gregg Toland invented.

And then back up and really watch it for what it has to say about humanity, particularly the difference between love and selfishness.  In my opinion, this more than anything is what gives the film its richness and longevity.  As long as we remain a race of self-absorbed beings, the warnings from Kane’s tragic plight will be potent and poignant.

Artistry: 10
Entertainment: 8