Still Great After 75 Years

Rating: 10/10 (3 February 2016)

Like most anyone who has watched this movie over the last fifty years or so, I was introduced to it by a great number of people proclaiming it to be the greatest movie of all time. So at the age of fourteen, I got it from the library, popped it in, and had my understanding of film changed forever.
I do not consider this the greatest movie of all time. But it is the most important movie of all time. It is arguable that film should be divided into two eras: the pre-Citizen Kane era and the post-Citizen Kane era. There are enough revolutionary techniques and ideas to make a film lover's head spin. But one thing a lot of people overlook is just how good this movie is on its own right.
The best way I can describe it is a film version of an acclaimed twenty-century novel. There is sharp symbolism, highly developed characters, a somber mood, and nuanced discussions about broken dreams and the human condition.
If you're a fan of those types of stories, you will enjoy Citizen Kane. If you're not, you may not, but do yourself a favor and watch it anyway. Just like every literate adult should have already read The Great Gatsby and Of Mice and Men, every filmwatching should have already seen this movie. If you have not, I suggest you take care of that.
Me? I adore The Great Gatsby, like Of Mice and Men, and will watch this film over and over again. It concerns a reporter trying to track down the meaning of the last word of the famous media Tycoon Charles Foster Kane. Along the way, he talks to various people who knew Kane and gets many different sides of the story. He ends up not finding out the meaning of that last word, but we, the viewers, do.
Now, I'm not gonna spoil what Rosebud is- this despite the fact that it has basically become shorthand for 'spoiled twist'- but I will say that it fits with the themes of the movie quite nicely. This is the right way to do a twist. One thing many directors and screenwriters forget is that twists are not merely supposed to be shocking; they are supposed to add to the story in a fundamental way. Most good stories I've seen get this. All bad stories I've heard do not. It is a fundamental and simple concept, so I have to wonder how so many directors and screenwriters miss it.
Speaking of directors and screenwriters, for this film, they are one in the same. Mr. Orson Welles fills both roles and acts in the titular role, pulling off the most astounding triple play in movie history. Any triple play is incredible in this industry, but doing it in one of the greatest films of all time: that's impressive.
There is a scene midway through the film where Kane walks through a hall of mirrors. It stuck in my mind, and it sticks in the minds of almost everyone who watches this movie. I cannot think of a better example of the power of visual storytelling. An amateur filmmaker would have just had Kane ramble off his emotions. But Welles, taking advantage of his medium, crafted one of the most haunting and memorable scenes in cinematic history. If you have a friend who won't shut up about how books are better than movies, show them this film and point out this scene.
One thing that surprises many inexperienced filmwatchers is how this film only won one Oscar. Yes, a film said by many to be the greatest of all time only received the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Best Director? How Green Was My Valley. Best Cinematography? How Green Was My Valley. Best Art Direction? How Green Was My Valley. Best Picture? How Green Was My Valley.
Now, How Green Was My Valley is not a bad film. I suggest you watch it if you have nothing better to do. But it's no Citizen Kane. I doubt many of you have heard of it.
Oddly enough, this was not simply a case of poor decision making, though you could find much of that if you look in the annals of past Oscars. Media mogul William Randolph Hearst believed this film to be about him in all but name (very arguable) and said it was a negative portrayal (eh) that misrepresented him (definitely not). He could not get all copies of the movie destroyed or anything like that, but he did fight it at every turn, and he is likely the main reason why the film did not get more Oscars.
Ironically enough, William Randolph Hearst's name is one that has somewhat been eroded by the passage of time. The only thing many people in my generation know about him is that he likely inspired this movie. So it turns out that the film he fought against ended up giving him a form of immortality.
Kane is one of the most complicated characters in all of film, and more importantly, all his complexities mean something. Nothing feels like it's there just to make the character more complex. The result is a brilliantly textured story, one that can be loved even by people who aren't typically into this type of arc.
This film does not only feel revolutionary, it feels alive. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is the first film to feel truly, cinematically alive. There were great films made before it; among them are Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz and King Kong. But those films were merely sweeping, brilliant stories put on film. This is a unique, cinematic experience.