Orson Welles debut film, maybe greatest ever

Rating: 10/10 (29 January 2001)

Citizen Kane is revered as a cinematic masterpiece, it's been voted as the AFI'S #1 American Film of all time, Orson Welles has been called a genius. This stuff, we all know. However, I have heard and read SO MANY opinions about WHY this movie ISN'T great or even good. In fact I cringed as I read that some one called it "sucky". I think there is a lot about this picture that people need to realize in order to appreciate it a bit more. One of the great complaints about this film is that it's not entertaining, I think it is, but let's also remember that their is NO requirement for films to be entertaining (not everything must be a crowd-pleaser). The simple fact is, Orson Welles ushered along techniques in film that have set the tone for most filmmakers since (much like D.W. Griffith in 1915). But it's not just camera work. It's context as well. The way Kane's story is told. I'd be interested to know how many people that have said Citizen Kane was not good, that might agree that "The Usual Suspects" is one of the great movies of the past ten years. They are told with the same storytelling tools. Simply put, Welles did things that just weren't done prior to Kane. Not only that, but he based it on William Randolph Hearst. He took on the most powerful man in America of the time. And he fought to have it seen through even after Hearst threatened the entire Hollywood studio system. The greatness of this film is not only what is on the screen, but the story behind it as well. The truth is, Orson Welles was making an American classic when he was only 25 years old. What were the rest of us doing at 25?
If you're interested in the battle between Hearst and Welles for Citizen Kane, check out "RKO 281".