Citizen Kane

Orson Welles, USA 1941, 120 minutes

Citizen Kane: a movie which proudly sits atop virtually every greatest film list yet compiled. A film that fundamentally altered the possibilities of cinema and in the process provided a benchmark for everything that has followed. And yet…

Go up to 10 people in the street and ask them what they think about Citizen Kane. One may proclaim it a masterpiece immediately and wax lyrical on the myriad innovations which it brought. However, of the other nine, the overwhelming response is likely to be “oh yeah, that’s meant to be a masterpiece isn’t it. I should really watch it”. For all the awards and acclaim, the automatic reaction seems to be to view Kane as a chore which probably won’t be much fun but may be educational if you build yourself up to it. To all those who harbour this viewpoint (and I confess, I used to be with you) I have this to say: yes the film is a technical masterpiece, yes it remains a defining influence on cinema but just as important as either of the above – CITIZEN KANE IS BLOODY ENTERTAINING!

Citizen Kane begins in the dying days of millionaire publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane. A hugely influential public figure, the mystery of his dying utterance “Rosebud”, leads a reporter to retrace the life of this complex and charismatic figure to unravel the meaning behind this statement. The search leads the reporter, Jerry Thomson, towards a host of figures from Kane’s past, depicting a tragic story of idealism corrupted.

Watching Citizen Kane today, the first thing that strikes you is the fact that it appears not to have dated in the slightest. Astonishingly for a film produced in 1941, the film remains utterly relevant to modern audiences. The narrative arc, featuring an idealistic young protagonist corrupted by money and power, is now a staple of classic American cinema, from The Godfather to the character of Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight. The film’s unconventional structure enhances this timelessness, with much of the film consisting of a series of flashbacks to the life of Kane. This structure was unheard of in its time, bringing to mind early Tarantino in its vibrancy and conveyance of a complete mastery of the medium. The directoral debut of screen colossus Orson Welles, the film fizzles with invention and ambition. All this creativity is anchored by an utterly magnetic performance by Welles in the title role, totally convincing in depicting Kane’s slide from charismatic entrepreneur to paranoid recluse.

In summary, yes Citizen Kane is a landmark in cinematic history. But it’s so much more than that…

Review by Neil Henry
Written for EUFS Programme Autumn 2008

Tycoon Charles Foster Kane dies leaving an enigma: the meaning of his final utterace, "Rosebud". Looking for a scoop, a young reporter attempts to solve the mystery by interviewing Kane's old friends, lovers and colleagues. His quest goes unresolved - though we spectators are finally shown the meaning of Rosebud.

The staple #1 entry whenever a poll of critics (as distinct from Empire readers or Film Four subscribers) Citizen Kane has been endless debated and (over) analysed to the point where it's impossible to say anything new. So, just the facts, then:

The film, co-scripted by Orson Welles and Herman Mankiewicz, is basically a fictionalised biopic of press baron William Randolph Hearst. He found enough to object to in Kane - particularly, one suspects, the screenwriters' use of Rosebud, which was apparently his pet name for his lover's clitoris - to have his papers and pet critics do their best to scupper the film's chances.

The tale, with its seeker hero failing to solve the enigma as he travels deeper into Kane’s past - Welles himself dismissed the central McGuffin and the resolution offered to the viewer as dime novel Freud – perhaps echoes Willard’s journey in Heart of Darkness, the novel Welles had originally wanted to adapt for his film debut.

It also manages to both celebrate the American dream – from log cabin to White House, but for a marital indiscretion – and show it up for the dream that it is – Kane is born into money.

Stylistically Kane is not so much innovative in terms of the individual elements, more in their combination and further development.

With regard to the film's famed use of "deep focus" cinematography - basically where both foreground and background can be kept in focus simultaneously, for instance, James Wong Howe had pioneered the technique and Kane's cinematographer Gregg Toland had already deployed it on his work for John Ford. Welles's innovation, then, was to use deep focus in combination with long takes to present a new type of mise-en-scene that allowed his colleagues from the Mercury Theatre to apply their stagecraft to the cinematic medium.

Or, with regard to the multitude of influences – newsreel meets biopic meets German Expressionism meets Vorpavich montage – it’s the way in which the Expresssionist elements of Kane not only summarise the German silents and Universal horrors, but also pave the way for the noir movement of the later 1940s. (Indeed, some have argued that Kane is the first noir, allowing them to neatly bookend the entire noir cycle with two Welles films – Kane and Touch of Evil.)

To sum up, then, a must see classic etc, etc, etc.

Review by Keith H. Brown
Taken from EUFS Programe Spring 2003

"Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know what you’ll think of Mr. Kane, and I can't imagine. You see, I play the part myself... Well, Kane is a hero and a scoundrel; a no account and a swell guy; a great American citizen and a dirty dog."

With these words from the original trailer Orson Welles (director, star and producer) set up the question which is never answered: what’s the real truth behind Charles Foster Kane?

The story of his life starts with his death and his final word "rosebud". It is one journalist’s efforts to determine the meaning of this word that allows the story of Kane's life to unravel. As each character is interviewed in turn they shed their own biased light upon the character of Kane. One character, a friend of Kane called Mr. Bernstein, portrays him as a man prepared to stand up to the establishment and defend those less fortunate than himself but also troubled by his privileged upbringing and wealth: "If I hadn't had money I could have been a truly great man".

Other characters reveal the darker side of Kane. His second wife recalls how he forced her to become an opera singer. The pressure and her lack of talent cause her to flounder and ultimately fail. Kane’s need for his wife to succeed verges on the obsessive, believing that his money and influence can mould her to his vision. This eventually destroys the marriage.

It would be wrong to infer from these examples that Kane is either great or monstrous because he is both and neither. There is no black and white in the film, despite what you may see. This contradiction is the beauty of the film, setting up such a dichotomy of emotion for the character that no definition of the man can be truly correct.

Herman Mankiewicz's marvellous screenplay is matched by the inspired camera work from cinematographer Gregg Toland. His imaginative use of light and shadow and the innovative use of deep focus combined with more conventional techniques make the film as dynamic as the character it portrays.

Men such as Mankiewicz, Toland and composer Bernard Herrmann should not be overlooked. Although Welles was undeniably the major creative force behind the movie it is unlikely that it would have succeeded without the talents of these filmmakers.

Is Citizen Kane the greatest film ever made? My advice is to watch it and find out.

Review by Chris Hansell
Taken from EUFS Programe Autumn 1999

Citizen Kane (like Battleship Potemkin) is famous now because it is always being voted the best film ever by critics or termed "influential" and not because it has been seen by many people - which is a shame as it really is an amazing film. Charles Forster Kane (the first millionaire media magnate) dies and as he kicks the bucket he utters the word "Rosebud". A journalist hears about this and determines to find out what Kane (Orson Welles) meant by this and what relevance it had to his life. In the proccess he interviews many of Kane's associates from his life but never uncovers what Kane meant.

The story of Kane was based on the life of the real first media mongul William Randolph Hearst who cunningly noticed that it was his biography and not a particularly nice one at that and used all his influence to try and stop the film. Unfortunately for Hearst, because the film (and Welles) in many ways revolutionised the medium of cinema, it has remained rather famous (handy tip here - if someone is making a not nice film about your life, make sure they are untalented).

In many ways, the things that made Citizen Kane so revolutionary in 1941 we now take for granted - for instance shots with ceilings in them and the use of flashback. However Citizen Kane is still filled with wonderful visual images such as Kane dying; the brilliant portrait of Kane's first marriage breaking down just with shots of Kane and his wife eating breakfast together; Kane at the election with the huge picture of himself behind him; Susan Alexander in the Opera House; Kane and Susan fighting in the huge lonely mansion of Xanadu.

Citizen Kane is not just an amazing film because of its story of a lonely man ruined by ambition and longing for the lost innocence of his childhood but because of the way the story is told by Welles with a fantastic script, a masterful directorial style and an overwhelming performance as Kane.

"Absolutely riveting... a film that gets better with each renewed acquaintance" - Time Out

Review by Alicia Forsyth
Taken from EUFS Programme 1996-97

With such a reputation behind it, "the greatest film ever made", Citizen Kane does indeed take some beating, and it's little wonder that more has been written on this film than any other.

The plot: a reporter pieces together the biographical details of media tycoon Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles, from his mysterious dying word "Rosebud".

And what makes it so special? Citizen Kane is stylistically and technically incredibly complex and for its time (1941) ground-breaking to say the least. Techniques that now seem commonplace to us today were breaking Hollywood conventions then. Welles' inexperience worked in his favour: unaware of the "right way" to make a film, he came up with a totally new style, helped by his designers and technicians, who came forth with ideas they had been bottling up for years.

The structure is an unconventional overlapping narrative whose deliberate discontinuity is a way of keeping the audience attentive. It effectively freed scriptwriters thenceforth from the conventions of strict chronology. Technically the film owes much to Welles' cinematographer, Greg Toland, who was for Welles "the best director of photography that ever existed" Toland and Welles avoided the conventional mise-en-scene of long-shot/medium-shot/close-up to instead create a more objective view of the action via deep-focus lenses, multiplane compositions and camera movement. There were much longer takes, and the Mercury Theatre (Welles' theatre company) actors could perform as they were used to (i.e. not under close-ups and cutting action up), the way characters are positioned in their surroundings is significant (e.g. the dying Kane lost in expansive void of his mansion), and the viewer can more or less chose what they want to see within the frame - makes for more objective and realistic viewing.

As well as the deep-focus composition, Kane also made use of unusually low camera-angles (made possible by ceilinged sets), chiaroscuro lighting (surely an influence on the approaching film noir boom, expressionist distortion in certain scenes, shooting into lights, an array of striking visual devices and special effects, and amazing use of sound (which Welles was expert in from his radio experience).

But the beauty was not that these were all Welles' innovations: Jean Renoir had already used deep-focus, as had Toland in previous films, and most of the other tricks came from the great German silent-film directors. The innovation was the way Welles dared to bring this to Hollywood in such an exuberant and iconoclastic style, and fuse all the elements and styles together not just out of "experiment experiment's sake" but for necessary budgetary, narrative and artistic reasons.

And, all in all, the resulting coup of Citizen Kane is despite all this technical mastery, it doesn't lose sight of its rudimentary function - to serve as entertainment. It's a marvellous movie which demands to be seen again and again.

Review by Mark Radice
Taken from EUFS Programme 1993-94