This spring I continue to utilize my Netflix queue to take myself to “school” with film classics. Earlier in the month I finally sat down to watch Citizen Kane in its entirety for a critical review. Without further adieu…
All That Ballyhoo!, 5 May 2008
Author: David H. Schleicher from New Jersey, USA
On the Criterion Collection DVD of Orson Welles’ classic Citizen Kane there is an original theatrical trailer where Welles cleverly advertises the film by introducing us to the cast including the chorus girls, whom he refers to as some nice ballyhoo. That pretty much sums up my opinion of the often over analyzed film that always shows up at the top of the list of greatest films ever made. Even though this was the first time I sat down to watch the film as a whole, I knew everything about it from studying it in film class and from the countless number of essays, homages, and parodies that have come down the pike over the years. It seems impossible now to judge the film against a blank slate, but with great ballyhoo comes great scrutiny.
Released in 1941 by RKO as a Mercury Theater Production, Citizen Kane is the tale of an influential and shockingly wealthy newspaper tycoon (Welles) inspired by the life of William Randolph Hearst. The story follows the investigation into the origins of “Rosebud”-the mysterious word Kane utters on his deathbed. Following newsreel footage announcing Kane’s death, we are then thrust into a series of flashbacks through interviews with various people who knew Kane that reveal the nature of his character.
From a technical standpoint, Welles’ film is as innovative and engrossing today as it was yesterday. Every single piece of cinematic trickery, every dissolve, every long tracking shot, every seamless edit, every play with chronology, every special effect is perfect. Welles was audacious and inventive with his art, and it is for these technical aspects that Citizen Kane will always stand the test of time.
However, the story of Citizen Kane remains cold and distant. I didn’t instantly connect with the characters and the plot the way I did with other classics from the period like Casablanca or The Third Man or even more recently, There Will Be Blood. Often, the supporting players over-act, and the flashbacks are tedious (especially the one detailing Kane’s second marriage) or emotionless (like the scene showing Kane’s snow covered childhood). There’s a certain smug arrogance to the whole production that makes it seem like perhaps Welles was secretly making a comedy. It leaves one wondering how it would’ve come across had Welles actually been allowed to do a straight up biopic of Hearst.
Is it any wonder that so many critics today hail this as THE all time great? Much of today’s cinema is geared towards style and technique over substance, and way back in 1941, Welles was the first to author this very modern brand of cinema where the art is not in the story but how it is told and shown to the audience. His Citizen Kane is technically rich, layered, and enthralling but narratively vapid. Did I ever really care about Kane or Rosebud? No, but it was fascinating to watch. It’s some very nice ballyhoo indeed.
Originally Published on the Internet Movie Database:
Wow I admire your guts in criticizing this film, even though I don’t agree with everything you said. I find the flashbacks to be some of the most emotional scenes in a rather cold film. I’ve probably seen the film about 4 times, and I like it more each time I see it though. The first time, I was impressed but didn’t care. The second time I was impressed and began to see the tragic slant earlier in the film, as I knew what was coming. The last two times I’ve seen it, I’ve been able to focus on the details. What you get at, the coldness and distant aspect of the plot and characters is valid. Kane is a tough nut to crack. I don’t see it so much as a flaw, as more a design of the film though, and also Welles not conforming to standard narrative cliches, nor pandering to audiences who were always given what they wanted. What I like, is that I have a hard time penetrating the thing. Personally, I like Touch of Evil even more, as I think the emotional resonance is more impactful. But, I would have a hard time arguing that it’s a better film than Kane.
Jon – I prefer Touch of Evil for its entertainment value over this in Welles’ canon – but Kane is the “better film.” You raise many good points – I might have to revisit the film some time to see if my opinion evolves like yours did. –DHS
Great review! I agree with the film being difficult to connect to. The shots are magical and definitely revolutionary, but the plot leaves much to be desired, leaving me to question AFI’s high regards as well. Check out my review and comment!
Thanks, Logan. I’ll be heading over to your blog shortly to read your review(s). Looks like you have some interesting stuff going on there. –DHS