Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Citizen Kane: The Greatest Movie Ever Made?

In a word, no. Sorry, but I just don't see it.

I'll be the first to admit that Citizen Kane is a revolutionary film. It certainly breaks with the established "Hollywood" style of cinematograpy. In fact, the cinematography is something I would expect of a late-20th Century (1970s-1990s) film, not one made in 1941, so it certainly was groundbreaking in that regard.

It is also one of the few (to my knowledge) major Hollywood films to feature an almost completely unknown cast. Sure, Welles and company were famous for doing radio shows, but none had ever done a Hollywood picture before. That and the fact that no-name Orson Welles was given almost complete creative freedom over the picture was all but unheard of at the time, and is in fact a very rare occurrence still today. So it's revolutionary in that regard as well.

Also, there is of course the famous battle over the film's production. Never before or since (again, to the best of my knowledge) has there been such a controversy over a film's release. William Randolf Hearst did everything in his power to ensure that the film would not be finished and then, once production had wrapped, to keep the film from ever being shown. Not even Passion of the Christ caused that kind of uproar. If anything, this served only to make the film more famous and more successful.

So, Citizen Kane was groundbreaking in terms of cinematography, casting and creative control, and in terms of the controversy it caused. These are all great things, to be sure, but they're not enough to make the film "The Best Ever." And, unfortunately, neither is anything else about it. The acting is generic 1940s, as are music, andthe special effects (save for the parakeet). So, yes, it is a great film, but I just don't see how it can really justly be called "The Greatest."

Sorry.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Citizen Kane (1941) Review

I enjoyed Citizen Kane. I'll say that right upfront. I enjoyed it, but at the same time I do not think it was the best film I've seen in class so far, nor do I think it is/was the best American film ever made.

After class, someone (I cannot for the life of me remember who, sorry. EDIT: It was Andy. ) summed up my feelings almost exactly: "It was the most mediocre 'best film' I ever watched." I agree wholeheartedly. Nothing about the film seemed all that spectacular or groundbreaking. At most, it broke from the traditional "Hollywood Style." cinematography, with the establishing shots, two-shots, back-and-forth-shots, etc. Instead, the film's cinematography seems to be more "modern," more typical of what we'd expect to see in a theater if not today, then perhaps in the latter 20th Century. Aside from that, however, and the phenominal acting by Orson Welles and the rest of the Mercury Theater cast, the film seems to be a typical product of Hollywood in the late 30s and early 40s.

What struck me most about the film was the sympathy I wound up feeling for Kane himself. He is by no means a nice man. Far from it, he ends up being a control-obsessed tyrant. Still, Kane had enough money so that he could snap his fingers and have nearly anything he wanted, but the only time in his life when he was truly happy was when he was a young boy with nothing, nothing but his imagination and his sled, his Rosebud.

I enjoyed Citizen Kane. I really did. However, while I do think it is a must-watch film, I don't consider it to be the best film ever made. It just doesn't stand out enough to me.