..at least, I liked the opera..

Rating: 10/10 (29 October 2006)

Although only "one-of-one" reviewers thought "Elle S.A.'s" comments were noteworthy, please read that comment to understand all the technical innovations "Citizen Kane" pioneered. I appreciate Welles' genius, but liked him in "The Stranger" much better than this movie. All through his career, he started many "masterpieces", but never completed them. THAT, as much as Hearst's campaign to prohibit "Citizen Kane" from being distributed to theaters (he even tried to buy the original print from RKO, but it was owned outright by Welles), no doubt hampered his being able to get funding for future work.
I am amazed that people consider 1941 as having been in the dark-ages of film-making......wouldn't 1921 be a more appropriate era ? There were many wonderful movies made before 1941...."Gone with the Wind" ?? "Kane's" re-release in 1950 - after ten years of rampant curiosity over the controversy about it - had as much to do with its popularity as Welles' brilliance, simply because black-and-white movies were old-hat by then. I'm sure I saw its original release, but I don't recall being smitten with anything near "best picture I've ever seen". I guess I also saw it on TV; same comment. It wasn't until 2006 that I bought the VHS from eBay.........I've watched it twice since then (once last night) - and while I certainly agree it's a great movie - I truly can't say I'm flabbergasted by it. Maybe the DVD will give me a greater appreciation for it. I saw the floral "Rosebud" on the kid's sled and recognized all through the movie Kane was looking for the happpiness he could never buy with all his money. He was ruthlessly narcissistic.
Am I mistaken that Kane's "mother" (Agnes Moorehead) gave him up to "Thatcher" (George Coulouris) after the property they owned became worth a lot of money - like gold ??? - 75 million would have made him a billionaire, today. I DID like the opera-scenes, and suffered right along with "Susan Kane" (Dorothy Comingore), off-pitch and all. I'm impressed that this movie was Joseph Cotten's (Jed Leland) American debut as I am with Welles. Ruth Warwick (Emily Kane) impressed me not, but was good for the role. Ray Collins' (Boss Gettys) acting was right-on, as was Everett Sloane as "Mr. Bernstine" (?). The cinematography was great, but some camera-angles had been used in other movies.
As for Welles' aging make-up, does anyone remember the fantastic make-up jobs done by Lon Chaney in his horror-films - "Phantom of the Opera"? I have to constantly remind myself that people who are younger than the film usually are more easily astounded than we older folk are, who have seen it all develop. I'm sure I'd have to argue with "Citizen Kane" being proclaimed as NUMBER ONE on any list - my enjoyment is mine, others' are respected, but it has no influence on me. The movie did not make me cry, I wasn't shocked, I wasn't frightened, I wasn't impressed with everything looking so huge and forbidding; in other words, I've enjoyed other movies more. I only mourn that artists get so wrapped-up in themselves - as Welles was - they are their own worst enemies.
Declaring movies (and movie-making) as being "perfect" and "the best film ever" are different for every individual. It's my opinion a lot of that is because Welles had total control of the film - he must have done an amazing acting-job to get that privilege. It doesn't mean that he didn't have many techs working with him. Bravo! to all, but most of that "greatest" obsession is uncalled for, in my opinion.