Citizen Kane: Is it the Greatest Film Ever Made?

The first time I was introduced to the famous movie Citizen Kane was in our textbook, The Film Experience. The chapter about cinematography uses the first flash back to Kane's childhood as an example of reframing. The authors quote, "one extreme and memorable example of reframing is an early shot in Citizen Kane. Here, the camera pulls back from the boy in the yard to reframe the shot to include the mother and the men observing him from inside the window; it then continues backward to reframe the mother as she walks toward a table" (Corrigan and White 91). The ironic thing about this scene is it says a lot about the type of character Kane is in this film. Even though he is outside playing, he is still the center of attention and the same is true throughout the whole movie. In general, Citizen Kane is acclaimed as a visual master piece and after seeing it I would agree. Orson Welles uses cinematography, mise-en-scene, and editing in an innovative way in order to tell the story of Kane's life. He used film techniques like flashbacks to represent the complexity of Kane's life, crane shots to add to the search-like feeling in the film, deep-focus to represent the largeness of Xanadu or to fit as many people into the scene as possible, low lighting to place Thompson, the reporter, in the shadows, and a realistic newsreel to begin his film to display Kane's power and wealth. These are just a few examples of techniques that makes Citizen Kane stick to many . But is this what makes Citizen Kane the greatest movie ever made?

At this point in my film class I do not think I have enough knowledge of film to say that this is the greatest movie ever made. Firstly, I have not seen enough movies that critics have acclaimed in order to have some idea of comparison. Secondly, a scale of greatness is quite relative and not very helpful in my book. Perhaps this is my dislike of competition coming out, but in my opinion, a more effective tool for viewers to gain appreciation for atypical films like this one is knowledge about what makes a film acclaimed. For example knowing the history of film making as well as what all goes into making a film (mise-en-scene, cinematography, editing, genres, narratives) has helped me appreciate the older movies. This knowledge has also helped me see beyond the entertainment, beyond the bowl of popcorn, and helped me see what makes a movie sad, happy, scary, depressing, and or funny. If I have to rate it, I would say it is one of the top ten greatest movies, but not just for its technical aesthetics. In class we created a list of criteria for greatest films including: the structure of the story has a mix of coherency, complexity and at the same time is followable; the film form itself is beautiful and striking; there is some aspect of emotional depth/ impact; transitions are visually pleasurable; a great movie also takes risks without being distracting; a great movie demands a viewers involvement; there is some aspect of re-watchibility of the film; cultural relevance, but also some universality. All these things from a movie critics perspective makes up a great movie and although all of these things are characteristics of Citizen Kane, this criteria is not why I would rate it top ten.

Before I saw Citizen Kane I saw a documentary on the film about the history behind it and the political uproar it caused. For me the movie was brilliantly intriguing because of it's story behind the plot and its making. The fact that Kane is modeled after William Randolph Hearst, a powerful man who at some point in history controlled over 30 newspapers across America and owned an estate that today is considered the most expensive private homes in the U.S.A., makes it even more brilliant. Basically, the most powerful producer of Hollywood took on the most powerful man in the media and Orson Welles not only produced the movie he stared in it as Kane. During the time when this movie was first released Hearst was still alive and when he saw this he did everything in his power to put it back in the warehouse. Welles had to have known what he was coming up against when he decided to make this film and seemed willingly to take the risk. For example you can tell from the movie's portrayal of Hearst that Welles was deliberately attacking Hearst's love for money and material possessions. In the film Xanadu, Kane's estate, seems very similar to Hearst's mansion that he often called 'the ranch', which is still standing in California today. Even Kane's open love affair with Susan Alexander seemed to mirror Hearst's love affair with Marion Davies. I just love how honest and culturally relevant it is. From Welles meticulous creation of a realistic newsreel to the way Kane's story is told from "the peoples" point of view. Citizen Kane truly represents what would happen if Hearst were to have died when this film was released. With a person so powerful and well known as Hearst head lines on newsreels would be about his death and everyone would be wondering who he "really" was. The irony of it all is they would look to the media, the very source that has steered them wrong all along, to find out.

I would definitely recommend watching this movie, but I would also recommend you do some sort of research or watch the documentary about the movie so you go in with some knowledge of the movies history. Keep in mind a common theory that Citizen Kane became so big because of the political uproar that followed its original release. Just like everyone wants to read a banned book, everyone wanted to see Citizen Kane to see what all the controversy was about. It just so happened that Citizen Kane was also was the most aesthetically pleasing film critics laid their eyes on. If your like me, once you see this movie you will want to know everything about Hearst and the other powerful business men Welles modeled Kane after.