Movie #2: Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane: Orson Welles' 1941 classic

The whole idea to take out a chunk of AFI's Top 100 films of the last 100 years revolves around my desire to start at the top with the 1941 classic, Citizen Kane. Being a huge fan of the Godfather, I was stunned to learn that there was a movie that a widely-respected organization claimed was better than Pacino, Brando, Caan, Cazale, Keaton, Duvall, and company. For quite some time, I had been meaning to was Orson Welles' masterpiece, even arranging a city weekend to check it out (which fell through). Being unable to find it at stores, it seemed as if it would remain elusive, as though I was not meant to see it.

Then, in my search for something to fall asleep to on the way back from Hong Kong, I saw it. Among the (surprisingly vast and diverse) movie selections was Citizen Kane. Well-equipped with sixteen hours to kill, I decided to dive right in. Two hours later, I was not disappointed. There was a lot to like about this movie from the get-go, so let's get into a few of them, shall we?

1) The way the story is structured, it almost seemed like one of those "In the news" bulletins they used to play before films in the theaters (ask your parents/grandparents about it), though solely focused on Kane. This makes the movie a precursor for the Biography channel, E! True Hollywood Story, AND Behind the Music...only on top of that, they throw in the mystery of the whole Rosebud angle (curse Family Guy for spoiling this). That leads me to my next point...

2) The symbolism of Rosebud makes this a credible artistic endeavor. While Citizen Kane was entertaining from many angles, it does force the viewer to come up with a little bit of speculation as to what Kane did to fill this void in his life. As we see when he builds Xanadu, the finest and most expensive things in the world don't add up to make happiness. Without the Rosebud angle, it can be inferred that Kane just had an insatiable appetite for consumption in every regard. This monkey wrench, however, changes the character from someone who just wants more to someone who's actually broken up about going without, who is actually missing something. It's another dimension to the film, and while one could argue that psychologically, Kane's endless consumerism could represent that anyway, Rosebud drives the point home and actually gives a symbol of that ceaseless yearning.

3) Welles shows impressive range, in my opinion, for portraying Kane at every step of the way to the top of his field: from naive young man to uber-powerful mogul, it's as though Welles had drawn from personal experience to show a wide array of characteristic traits. His transitions, too, are impressive, to the point that the nuances between young Kane and in-his-prime Kane and broken Kane are nearly imperceptible until the climax of each phase of Kane's life are already on the table. For example, the scene where all of the dancers are brought into the staff dinner/meeting: early in the scene, it comes across as a genuinely grateful gesture on Kane's part to his partners who have collectively reached the top. There's a look that Welles gives towards the end of the scene, however, that carries a lot of heft behind it, as if saying "I run this show".

4) The scene changes and cinematography. I understand that now I can make a movie using my own computer and a webcam using similar fade techniques and all. What's impressive about this is in the fact that the film this year is 70 years old! Rather than a fade to black or an abrupt cut to the next scene, Welles works an effective, targeted fade from one scene to another, and to a specific object in the next scene, to be precise. Just a very well-shot film. That's another thing, before we move forward: there's a lot to be said for older films which manage to captivate the viewer based on content of the scene, rather than resorting to constant changes of angles. It drives me crazy that it seems to be such a crutch of a tactic; the content is the key, and is what should be able to hold the attention of the viewer.

Note the transition from shot to shot
This brings up a huge debating point of this list and cinema enjoyment in general: how much of a buoy/hindrance is it to be an antiquated movie? The statement that I've been trying to avoid has been, "for its time". Is that fair one way or the other? On one hand, the technologies of today were inconceivable in 1941, and so do we give extra credit (as it may appear AFI has done with their selections) to older films for what they were able to do way back when? On the other hand, it strikes me as a little unfair to create a list of comedies that include many older films, simply because tastes in humor have changed, language has aged, and frankly, there are some films which are considered funny simply by default; Bob Hope is funny to fewer and fewer people as time goes on simply because the styles of humor have changed. As a result, to simply reward older films with a loftier standing on this list because they're older. Keep in mind, I understand and appreciate the idea of acknowledging that which came earlier. But that doesn't mean what came first was better in all cases. In my opinion, you reward slightly. What you should NOT do is handicap newer films for not having entirely original concepts, as 100 years of cinema will deplete the stock of fresh concepts.

All in all, a great film. I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. While it doesn't have the rewatchability of, say, The Rock, Citizen Kane is certainly deserving of a spot on this prestigious list. Whether it deserves the top spot is something I'd like to debate. I give it two thumbs up and would certainly recommend this film for anyone, particularly those who can appreciate good film.