Citizen Kane

[Guest sharpie]

I saw this a few months ago after about a 20 year hiatus from last viewing. What struck me this time was, in addition to the great look and performances, was just how entertaining the movie is. Things that seem cool to me in college, like the pterodactyl at the Xanadu party, are still cool today.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I only saw the movie once, and was unimpressed. I was also 15, so I'll withhold my opinion until I've seen it as a grownup.

I'll have to keep an eye on Turner Movie Classics to see when they show it again.

[Willets Point]

I gave it five. This movie really is that good.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think we need ten gradations of voting.

[Guest sharpie]

You work with what you've got. The Michelin guides only go up to three.

[dgwphotography]

If there was ever a movie that was crying out for a review from our resident Sage, this would be it.

[Vic Sage]

4 ****

why not 5?

I think the consensus around this film has more to do with its role in Welles' artistic martyrdom than its inherent qualities.

This was Welles' first film. Coming on the heels of his successful theater and radio career, RKO gave this enfant terribe carte blanche for KANE. Never having made a movie, he studied the films of John Ford, brought in noted cameraman James Wong Howe and writer Joe Mankeiwicz, cast his radio repertory company in all the supporting roles, and went on to create a scathing and barely concealed biopic of one of the most infamous and powerful figures in the world at the time... W.R. Hearst. Hearst then used his vast power to crush the film upon its initial commercial release, rendering it a box office dud. Welles was never given final cut on another studio movie, and spent the rest of his career taking acting jobs (and wine commercials) to pay for his independent projects (usually financed by a cartel of european interests, as tax dodges). His life became a cautionary tale for artists crushed beneath the wheel.

It is more than a little ironic that his last unfinished film was based on Don Quixote.

And i think KANE's rep has as much to do with scholars and journalists wanting to romanticize Welles' tragic mythos, and wanting to vindicate his career, as it does with the film itself.

Don't get me wrong. its a great film. I just think its a bit showy, like a Coen bros film, very aware of itself as "cinema", with a neat bag o tricks... ALL of which had been employed before. Despite reports to the contrary, Neither Welles, Mankiewicz or Howe invented anything here.

To be sure, it has brilliant moments... the scene at the dining room table that describes the entire history of the marriage between Kane and his wife in a series of cuts is something that should be in a textbook (it probably is, somewhere). The use of deep focus, the dissolve through the skylight, the hall of mirrors... its all there, in beautiful black & white.

However, though KANE is entertaining and occasionally brilliant, I never found it emotionally engaging, and for me that's always the bottom line. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is emotionally engaging. KANE not so much. LAWRENCE gets 5*, and KANE gets 4*.

[RealityChuck]

Kane deserves its reputation.

I think the best evidence of this is just how fascinating the film is. I once caught it on TV just a week after I had seen it in a theater. Despite that, I found it impossible to change the channel. The story is just so good.

And, yes, there are plenty of innovation. The camera going through the glass skylight, for instance. The shots framed to show a ceiling (considered bad form until Welles did it). The entire film is a visual treat and even the things like deep focus (which had been used before) were never used to such effect, and showed filmmakers new ways to use what they had.

A great film by any standard.