I'm on a quest to watch more classic cinema, by watching a new movie from each year since 1940.
Citizen Kane, released in 1941, is possibly the most monumental movie of all time. Many critics and film lovers declare it as the best film ever made with actor/director Orson Welles often praised as ahead of his time.
All of the prestige surrounding the movie made watching this an interesting experience. I have now seen the film twice and my opinion has changed slightly over time. Citizen Kane is a technically well made movie with revolutionary cinematography, brilliant acting and a masterful script. It is also, however, a slightly laborious watch.
The first time I watched the film, I came away thinking that it was extremely dull. I did not care for the characters, engage with the story or feel any strong emotions throughout the run time. A rewatch has not drastically altered my opinion; I still feel that the story is not gripping in the same way as other classic movies I have seen. However, what I have come to appreciate is the evolution of the story's central character, Charles Foster Kane.
The movie opens with a news reel recounting Kane's life in the wake of his death. We hear about his rise to prominence, his personal life and intrigue about his lavish lifestyle through the lense of the media. Tragedies, scandals- whole phases of life- are all summed up in sentences. The movie then proceeds to deconstruct our perceived notion of this enigmatic figure, right down to the very last shot of the film where we finally find out what his dying word, 'rosebud', meant.
Something else I appreciated this time (though perhaps not as much appreciation as the movie deserves) is the cinematography and filmmaking. For example, Citizen Kane was one of the first films to utilise a technique called 'deep focus' which means that every part of the frame is in focus rather than just the central subject. As elaborated on in many analysis pieces (like this one), the use of this technique allowed for a lot of meaningful imagery as well as utilising Orson Welles' background in theatre where the blocking of every character is vital.
So why did the movie not work for me? I find that one of the most frustrating responses to disliking a film is 'well...you clearly don't get it.' However, in this case- I actually don't get it. I am simply not knowledgeable enough about the development of cinema to comprehend the revolutionary filmmaking and have not seen enough similar films in order to enjoy the style of storytelling used. Depending on your view of what movies are designed for (as pieces of art or entertainment?) this could classify Citizen Kane as either a brilliant film or a lacking one.
It is interesting that I found myself to be more engaged on a second watch. Though I cannot claim to 'get' the big picture of Citizen Kane, the pieces of the puzzle are beginning to come together. Given my slight change of heart in just a couple of years, perhaps Citizen Kane is a movie that I will massively appreciate a few years down the line.
Thank you for reading this article on Citizen Kane. If you're interested in hearing more about Citizen Kane (from someone more insightful) find a few links here:
Comments