A newspaper magnate dies alone and the press search to find the meaning of his final words: “Rosebud”.
Is there anything new to say about what has been called one of the greatest movies of all time by every serious film critic ever? No. I’ll just reheat what they’ve said and will try to explain how it’s still relevant today in the age of Rupert Murdoch as it was in the age of William Randolph Hearst, whose life Citizen Kane is based on (Hearst castle is worth a visit, it’s actually pretty close to Kane’s Xanadu). Simply that media barons have long been using sensationalism to sell their politics to their reader. But the film presents a far more human side of this imposing figure than you would expect, and, after watching his entire life unfold, it’s pity you feel rather than hatred for such a lonely person.
The fact that Orson Welles co-wrote, directed and starred in this movie at 25 years old is incredible. Along with cinematographer Gregg Toland (whose credit is shared with Welles’ directing card at the end of the film), he consistently achieves incredibly dense and informative framing, often showing the power relationships between the characters changing with elaborate camera movements. Toland and Welles pioneered the deep focus techniques in this film, where the extreme foreground and extreme background are both clear and in focus. A great example would be the shot where Kane’s mother is signing him away, and the child can be seen playing with his sled in the background. Another example would be when his second wife attempts suicide, and we see the bottle in front of the frame, her still form in the middle, and the door being beaten down in the background. A conventional film would have used at least three separate shots to tell the same story. It’s still powerful and impressive today.
The writing is also incredible, taking and deconstructing an entire man’s life, never spending too long on the framing device. A 10-minute newsreel at the start of the film gives us all the information on Kane’s life from an outside perspective; that we know the rough outline of his life already, as if he truly were a real public figure, allows the movie to concentrate the audience’s attention on the central mystery, that of the meaning behind his dying words, and to seeing his life from the perspectives of the characters that knew him (the reporter’s face is always in shadow so we are never distracted by his character). Long preceding the recent Hollywood trend for biopics, that, due to lack of ambition or legal reasons, fail to cover the most interesting periods in their subjects’ lives, Citizen Kane benefits from the conveniences of fiction (condensing time) while still feeling like an authentic and comprehensive exploration of a man’s life.
The performances, from a cast of unknowns, are likewise excellent, Orson Welles in particular capturing both youthful enthusiasm and the physical and psychological stiffness of old age. The other actors face similar difficulties, playing both the young idealistic and older weary versions of their characters, assisted only by some minimal ageing make-up. Dorothy Comingore, who plays Susan Alexander, has the toughest time, starting as Kane’s bubbly mistress, being forced into an opera career and effective prisoner at Xanadu and finally ending up a drunk husk. There is such richness in this movie that it demands repeat viewings.
Citizen Kane is worth seeing for its influence alone. It has inspired so many parodies and references, not least the clapping .gif, that you’re missing out. Whole episodes of The Simpsons have been devoted to parodying this movie. There’s a reason for that. It’s actually amazingly good.
Verdict: Quintessential.
0 Responses to “Citizen Kane (1941)”