Citizen Kane - Not the Greatest Film Ever Made

Rating: 7/10 (2 May 2012)

Citizen Kane has been labelled as one of the greatest movies ever made. The story of a newspaper tycoons life and how a reporter try's to find the meaning of his last word. Directed and starring Orson Welles.
It pains me to say it but I found this film disappointing. I tried to go through my mind after the film searching for why I didn't enjoy it and I considered that maybe it was because of the age of the film, but then I remembered that there were many films from this era that I loved so that didn't stick. The only thing I could say is that maybe it was because it was literally the first big film after the new era of sound and at its time was considered groundbreaking while now it seems tepid. Even this reason doesn't really feel right with me and honestly I think it's down to the following reasons why I truly found this film a let down.
The biggest hit to this film for me is the acting, it mentions at the credits that this film gave a first break for some of the actors and it really does show. Firstly though Welles acts his role perfectly as the love starved Kane, perfectly finding his electricity and his need for people to love him. Other than Cotton (perhaps the lead female deserves credit) I found the supporting cast poor in general but this is really to be expected as looking back to most pre 1960 film there are not normally more than two good actors in a film. This does not sound like much of bad point but I coming to why the acting in this film ruins it for me. There is one pivotal scene in the movie, the scene where the child is taken away towards the start. This scene was supposed to show the child's carefree nature and then how this is ripped from him by the corporation coming in and removing him from his family. The scene annoys me, the child actor does not portray the feeling of this emotion correctly and you watch feeling like it could of been done so much better and without this scene being done properly the metaphor for the film is lost. Now you may say this is harsh on the child actor but the people who made this film should have seen this and either re-shot with a different actor or thought of a different idea on how to work the loss felt by the child into the film.
My second criticism of the film is partly to do with the way it is filmed, splicing different segments of his life story in different order due to them being told by different people. While I must firstly say this sort of thing in 1941 is groundbreaking and perhaps the fact that they even attempted it shows my following to be a moot point, but I still wouldn't expect this from the "Greatest Film Ever Made". Because of this way of film making the scenes with Kane himself are short and sharp, showing change in character very quickly, see scene with his first wife having dinner, this doesn't allow a true character arc. With more time spent in each scene perhaps a feel for the character or an understanding of why he changes could be seen. Also I would of preferred the film to have been perhaps 30 minutes longer to allow for more of Kane's character to be seen with perhaps some delving into his childhood or more of why he no longer ran the paper.
I would like to make clear that while I did not completely love this film it must be seen as a groundbreaking film for its time and at the time, the best film ever made. It's use of camera angles and focus is far beyond anything seen in that age with some absolutely amazing cinematography. Two scenes stick out for me, but it must be said that there are many scenes throughout the film which look fantastic. Firstly where Kane is finishing Leland's review of his wife's performance and Leland slowly walks towards him from the distance showing Kane's madness and Leland trepidation of approaching him in one perfect shot. Secondly a scene where Kane signs away his newspaper shows Kane becoming smaller as he walks towards the window and then underneath it. It shows to our perception that the window is bigger than we think and that Kane himself has shrunk in stature.
Lastly I would just like to add that after reading the film I read several posts on this films wall wondering why more was not said about Charlie's son. The people on the boards point to it as a flaw in the film while I claim it to be probably it's biggest success. The lack of attention to the child by Kane and the film overall(more so as a metaphor in terms of the film) is down to Kane's own loss of childhood. Being taken from his family and forced to grow too quickly causes Charles Kane to becoming a wreck, a man who will do anything to be loved. He buys possessions and creates a temple, he tries so hard to help the working man by promising to remove corruption and bring truth, he does anything for his wives but in the end does not listen to them thinking only selfishly. All of these thing's he does for love and attention but in the end the loss of his family and childhood leaves a gaping hole in a young Charlie and though he tries to fill this void he cannot, showing the true meaning of this film, and of of "rosebud", money cannot buy you happiness. 7/10