New review from first time watcher: Kane still good today?

Rating: 9/10 (30 July 2009)

Why another review of Citizen Kane, a movie that made its mark in cinema history and is often regarded as the best film of all time? I'm not sure why. Perhaps it's to put my two cents in and to share what a 36-year old first time watcher but movie aficionado thinks about it. I was amazed it was made in 1941. It's in black and white but has modern original cinematography. It was revolutionary back then and I still regard it as original today. The plays of shadows and lights, who is lit up or not, and how, are not only beautiful but are evocative and serve storyline purposes. The transitions from scene to scene, backgrounds and foregrounds old and new fading out or in, are amazingly well done. Even today, you rarely see anything as artistic as this. The flashbacks and flash-forwards are very cleverly done (witness the diner table scene between Kane and his wife going from early twenties to middle age). The makeup in Kane is for the most part positively astounding and ages the characters better than most modern films. The camera angles are mostly unconventional, playing often with perspective for story purposes (notice Kane smaller in the background during bad moments or bigger than life when things go well). There are quite a few shots (Kane standing underneath a giant poster of himself for one) that are quite memorable and still powerful. I could go on but technically this movie is a marvel even today.
Despite the unconventional story structure, you never get lost, although you might be temporarily confused, and it makes the whole storyline very engaging. It follows the trials and tribulations of a very rich and influential newspaper mogul from childhood to his death but not in chronological order. As a matter of fact, the film starts with the death of Kane, followed by a newsreel (like in old World War II screenings) recapping his whole life and then followed by an investigation into Rosebud, his mysterious last word. It's inspired by the life of real newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst who tried his very best to destroy this movie... literally. There are lots of creative liberties taken but if you study the background, you will notice the similarities. It's a great story extremely well told. You might not care about Kane but he's certainly a rich, complex and fascinating character. He's played by the director Orson Welles and he shows a wide range of emotions and acts differently according to age, not just in demeanor but physically. The other actors, most of them newcomers to cinema, are very fine although a few succumb, including Welles sometimes, to overacting just a tad (they were mostly theater actors which would explain the theatrics I suppose). On first viewing, I found the mistress of Kane particularly annoying and badly acted to the point of being grating but on second thought, I think she was supposed to be that way, a bit of a superficial simple floozy.
Overall, I was impressed, despite high expectations, at how original, enjoyable and artistic Citizen Kane remains in 2009. It might not be one of my favorite films, nor would I consider it the best film of all time but I think it still appeals to modern sensibilities and deserves its reputation as a masterpiece. I highly recommend finding a copy of your own, preferably with the great commentary track by the famous critic Roger Ebert (Kane being his favorite film of all time) and with the illuminating documentary about the Battle of Citizen Kane showing the conflict between director/main actor Orson Welles and Kane's inspiration: Hearst, as well as their biographies.
Rating: 9 out of 10 (not a 10 because I wasn't moved or awed as much as a few other select films)