Revisiting Citizen Kane for the AFI Project

What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

Citizen Kane is on the following AFI lists:

The Original Top 100 (#1)
100 Movie Quotes: (#17 - Charles Foster Kane: "Rosebud.")
The Revised Top 100 (#1)

If there is anyone who ever waits on pins and needles for my blog entries, and if there is anyone who is interested in the blogs on the AFI Project, and if any of those people have participated with me in discussions about Citizen Kane in other groups, those people have probably been waiting on pins and needles for this entry. Har har. Granted, I doubt anyone meets any of those criteria, but the reason why I bring it up is because I have been such an outspoken...I don't want to say detractor, but, see, the AFI and many other people call Citizen Kane the greatest American film ever made. I, to say the least, disagreed. Not that I think it's a horrible movie. It's a masterpiece in its own right. I've always thought it groundbreaking, well-filmed, well-told, but I've also believed that the greatest American movie should be entertaining too, like, the whole complete package of stunning filmmaking and great entertainment in one solid package. I've always thought the Godfather or Casablanca fit that "whole ball of wax" description nicely. Citizen Kane, at least at first blush for me, was boring, slow, uninteresting. Of course, I think I was a junior in college when I first watched it.

Then, I came to Spout, and people decreed "blasphemy!" when I started bandying these opinions about (see: the Oscars and Philosophy in Film groups). Even though I simultaneously was modestly, indirectly chastised for watching the film because it topped some random list I shouldn't be influenced by (even though I should have been given points for even attempting to watch it), people were still flummoxed by my opinion as above. It's amazing how people en masse contradict themselves, but I'm just saying.

So, when I started this AFI Project, knowing I'd have to rewatch Citizen Kane at some point, I started to read more about it, from opinions here and on Netflix (where I got it, as my Netflix movie of the week). What I read repeatedly was that people watched the movie a first time and, like me, found it boring and slow and unrelatable. I mean average Joe type people, not film students or film aficionados attempting to appreciate the film for its great lighting and cinematography. What I also read is that several of these average Joe type people decided to pick up Citizen Kane again, thinking they might have missed something the first time because it's supposed to be this pinnacle of American filmmaking, and enjoyed it much better the second time around. Those who enjoyed it more then watched it again, and now they're convinced.

So, I thought, best to rip the band aid off quickly and go for the gusto! After all, it's been ten years, I think, since my first viewing, and it's on those lists (including the shortest movie quote ever, hmph). And second chances are always nice.

What I will say: I definitely liked it better on the second viewing. I definitely agree with the sentiments of its masterful filmwork. I think Orson Welles was ahead of his time (and was so handsome in his youth, yes?). I mean, he made this film at 26! That's remarkable, considering the maturity and philosophical complexity of the work.

Yet: I was still a little bored. OK? Though not as bored. And I still enjoy, on a basic, humanistic level, Casablanca and the Godfather more.

Welles plays Charles Foster Kane, the man of the title. The film opens as Kane lies on his death bed, his dying word being the enigmatic "Rosebud." When the papers of the day want to print a story about the man and his life and times, as he was such a pinnacle of society, love him or hate him, they decide to explore the "angle" of finding out the significance of Rosebud. The film is then told largely through flashback, as reporter Jerry Thompson interviews those closest to Kane, searching for the meaning of Rosebud. The viewer finds out that through a lucky gift to his mother in the form of abandoned land that turns out to be a quarry for unmined gold, his family becomes wealthy, but she essentially sells him off, in exchange for the trust of the fortune and annuity payments (and possibly to protect him from his father), to be the ward of the trustee. He's ridiculously wealthy by age 25, and he's spent most of his life rebelling against his guardian and the conventions he knows of his life. Once he becomes entrusted to his own estate, he decides to spend part of that fortune on a small newspaper, the New York Inquirer, but, and not unlike the model for his character, William Randolph Hearst, engages in yellow journalism - news based on rumor and gossip (like tabloids, see). Yet, he's seemingly committed to some high ideals, so as the circulation of the Inquirer increases, and as he invests in more and more, and even makes an attempt at politics, he becomes a tower of intrigue, mystery, and scandal, further complicating the puzzle behind Rosebud.

I think, after viewing Citizen Kane the second time, I realized that the reason why I enjoyed it more is because I knew what Rosebud meant going in. With that question out of the way, I didn't have to spend time looking for clues in what is, essentially, a dry retelling of magnate Kane's life story and exploration of Kane's feelings of abandonment. I could concentrate on all of the deft little bits of foreshadowing about Rosebud, the filmmaking and directing techniques, and so on. You know, the thing I am most impressed with about this movie is just how complex and philosophically satisfying the basic story is. It offers a lot to think about on the subject of human nature, and I don't think any film with any intellectual foundation by any filmmaker working for the art of it all can ask for more.

Of course, the lighting, the flashback technique (never before used), the sound, the use of the camera were all pretty brilliant for 1941. My two absolute favorite shots in the movie are the ending (naturally) and the shot of Kane standing in the doorway as wife number two, Susan Alexander, departs through the austere marble corridors of their Xanadu palace. He stands there, cold and alone, as he always is, wanting someone to love him, while the light around him grows slowly dimmer in his disappointment and sorrow, a perfect marriage between the visuals as directed and the emotions of the performance.

In fact, as a character study, I don't think Citizen Kane can be topped. To that end, this IS the greatest American film ever made. The layers of Charles Foster Kane are superb and seemingly infinite. He is morally ambiguous, seemingly righteous and repellant all at once. He seems to stand for what's right, yet he clearly, explicitly stands for himself. And why? Because he is struggling against the meaning of his childhood and the decisions that were made without his consent. The psychological complexity of this character is unmatched in cinema, in my line of thinking. That's kind of why I like the Godfather so much - Vito Corleone is the mob boss equivalent of Citizen Kane, if you think about it, but C.F. Kane has layers that are not quite as fully explored in the Godfather (because that is more about the family than the man in the end).

The pace of the movie is still rather slow and methodical, though. I started to get bored through the whole opera focus. I know why it was there: it was about a man trying to give someone a chance as much as asserting his will as much as the constant yearn for love and adulation. Still, I felt myself getting drowsy right about there.

Citizen Kane, I agree, though, is a perfect 10. It's a masterpiece, and it's much more resonant now than it was when I watched it in college. I just enjoy Casablanca (the perfect clandestine yet tragic romance) and the Godfather (the perfect morality tale) more. Still, I can see why some people see this is as the greatest American film ever made. Orson probably got points for the sheer bravado and guts of the thing. In fact, it's that quality that I admire most about this picture. When you consider what a feat of artistry it was, and the back story in how he had to fight to get it made, there's no denying that Citizen Kane deserves accolades for what it has become and what it means to filmmakers in general as well as to the filmgoing public. And - who knows - I might be inclined to watch it a third time. The best news is that I'm coming around about Citizen Kane, slowly but surely.