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.

No comments: