Citizen Kane: the classic Hollywood film that needs no introduction. If you say you are a lover of film that already implies that you have seen and analysed this film at least 10 times and you would certainly be burned at the stake if otherwise. Unfortunately for me, I still have a few rewatches to go before I am considered a true film buff, but that is where I am unique in this never-ending whirlwind of self-proclaimed “experts” of cinema.
Before I get to the review, I figured I should explain why I think I’m worthy of adding to the catalogue of Kane analyses. My name is Joshua Archer and I am a second-year film student at the University of East London. Growing up I have always had an affinity for cinema, an affinity my mother noticed as we would finish a film on network television and I would already have an entire essay planned out in my head. However, actually seeking out films to further my knowledge of the artform wasn’t something I did often, and therefore it led me to play catch up once I entered university and failed to have compelling conversations with some of my peers. This film blog is just what I needed, as I intend to review all of the classics – from Casablanca to Apocalypse Now, Hitchcock to Spielberg, Hollywood musical to the rise of gangster films – and give a fresh perspective as an eager and somewhat critical student.
So, what can I say about Citizen Kane? Maybe you expect me to try to challenge those before me and point out flaws that everyone seemed to miss for 80 years. I would be lying if I said that wasn’t the intention, as I first watched Citizen Kane a year ago and I wasn’t blown away by it. Therefore, I was expecting to be as bored and unimpressed as I remember I was, but to my humble surprise, I wasn’t. Maybe it is because I have a deeper appreciation for cinema after a year of watching films, or maybe it is because I’m not watching it at 12AM this time. Whatever it is, I found myself really engaged in the story and the characters this time around, and I have a lot to say.
Firstly, one of the biggest gripes that I had with the film originally was the reveal of what ‘Rosebud’ was. At that point I had already wanted to turn it off but I kept going out of sheer curiosity, so when I saw that ‘Rosebud’ was only the brand on his childhood sleigh I thought I just wasted 2 hours of my life. However, only recently have I realised that it is a metaphor for lost childhood. Charles Foster Kane was one of the most successful men of his time, accentuated by his monster of a mansion, Xanadu, and yet with his dying breath he thought about a time before the success. He was poor and didn’t have the best education, but he was happy. That happiness was something that he spent his whole life chasing, disguising this desire as selfless philanthropy and political justice. This lack of happiness in his life ironically stems from his mother’s love. When Mary Kane, played stoically by Agnes Moorehead, sends Charles away for a better life, it planted in his mind that he wasn’t enough for his mother. For that reason, I am very sympathetic towards his character. Though, this doesn’t excuse the fact that he was selfish and pushed away everyone that was close to him. His life was chosen for him and he devoted the rest of it to regaining control, no matter the cost. Orson Welles visually portrays this tug-of-war by contrasting two scenes – one of Kane as a child, and one as an adult. Still living with his mother, Kane is playing outside in the snow. The camera pulls away until he is in the background and in the foreground, his mother signs him away to Mr. Thatcher. In contrast, during Kane’s political campaign, the camera starts with him in the background and slowly pushes in until he is in the foreground, showing how he is now in control of his own destiny.
I also love the use of long takes in many scenes. I assume these would’ve been easy to execute as most of the actors were originally from the theatre. In fact, before Citizen Kane no film had seen so many silver screen debuts, many of which went on to become prominent talent in Hollywood, including Joseph Cotten, Everett Sloane and Agnes Moorehead, but I digress. Welles uses these long takes, combined with multiple camera movements, to tell the audience how a character is feeling and make us feel like we are in the room, like a fly on the wall. Take the scene where we are introduced to Kane’s second wife, Susan, played by Dorothy Comingore. In a storm, the lightning reveals the picture of a woman and as the camera tracks upward, it reveals that it is ‘Susan Alexander Kane’ and she now owns a nightclub. With the magic of editing, the camera appears to pass through the glass and once inside, we see Susan with her head down with an empty glass on her desk. Without any words being spoken we can tell that her ex-husband’s death has saddened her, to the point of excessive drinking.
Speaking of Susan, one thing that always confused me was almost every character’s criticism of her singing. I always thought her voice, whether or not it was Comingore’s, was pretty good. I don’t have much experience in the operatic sphere but Susan definitely isn’t even close to one of the worst voices I have heard. Although it doesn’t ruin the whole film for me, it does distract me a little bit when I’m supposed to be in disgust of her performances and yet, I see (or rather hear) nothing wrong with them. On the other hand, the quality of her voice doesn’t matter. Even if Susan was highly praised by everyone she wouldn’t care because she never wanted to pursue a career in performing. The point of Charles and Susan’s relationship is to show the unfortunate cycle Kane’s upbringing has created. He, like his mother did to him, chooses Susan’s fate thinking it will make her happy. However, Susan escapes his clutches twice: once by attempting suicide to stop performing, and the other by leaving him before she succumbs to his influence. It is only after she escapes from him that he realises that he too can escape, and he concludes that his escape is in his childhood – his “Rosebud”.
There is way more that I want to write about, but everything that I want to write has already been written by hundreds, maybe even thousands, of people on the internet. Everything in this article is just the aspects of Orson Welles’ crown jewel that stood out the most to me. I can honestly say that Citizen Kane is one of my favourite films now and it deserves to be hailed as a masterpiece, without rolling my eyes. For all you reluctant sceptics out there, give it a try and judge it based on your own experience with it, not with everyone’s opinions in mind.
Comments