Quarto potere

The most frequently acclaimed "greatest film ever," idiosyncratic in its day yet massively influential, a cultural staple, a narrative and technical tour de force, and there's the whole thing of the wunderkind granted carte blanche for his debut to the machinery of classical Hollywood at its peak--the expectations for "Citizen Kane," to say the least, are high. Indeed, it's a marvel of cinematography and plot. In both senses, there's a deep focus from various angles. The plot is a jigsaw puzzle of flashbacks from multiple sources--the "News on the March" film-within-the-film, the dead man's memoir, a reporter interviewing characters for the meaning of "Rosebud"--linked by an also-layered sound design and framed by a curious camera violating the "No Trespassing" sign in entering and exiting the Xanadu estate. Moreover, the story is about a powerful storyteller notoriously based on William Randolph Hearst (and other famous rich guys, if not also a bit of Orson Welles)--a newspaper man, populist politician, overseer of his lover's career, and who even dictates the story beyond his grave with his final word. The picture constantly exploits a deep depth of field, with figures in the foreground and background in focus, to show it off. Much of this was accomplished by composite photographic effects. While "Kane" is famous as an arty old black-and-white film, which it is, it belies that it was genre-mixing popular entertainment and a special-effects extravaganza of its day: the virtuosity of the editing and sound design in addition to the matte paintings, miniatures, multiple-exposure photography, rear projection, and the most significant use of the optical printer in between "King Kong" (1933) and "Star Wars" (1977). The difference is that the effects here are realistic as opposed to fantastic.

Outside of co-writer Herman Mankiewicz, cinematographer Gregg Toland and Welles, arguably the most important contributions to the production came from Linwood Dunn and his optical printer, and that's not even to mention a score by Bernard Herrmann, editing from Robert Wise, and contributions from a host of less well-known technicians doing career-best work, including lead matte painter Mario Larrinaga, the special-effects team's boss Vernon Walker, and art director Perry Ferguson. More than half the picture has been guessed to be effects shots. According to Dunn, "Once Orson Welles learned about the optical printer he just went hog-wild with it."

From the start, there's a miniature for the gate with the matte paintings of Xanadu in the background, and dissolves--lots of long dissolves in this one (and wipes and a few more dazzling effects)--transition between ever-closer views of the lit window, always matching the same frame position, until a reverse angle shot inside followed by an extreme close-up of Kane's lips, with the added snow effects, as he mutters the dying word. The reflection of the nurse in the broken snow globe was created with Dunn's printer. There are many such marvelous compositions throughout. In the "News on the March" reel, a terrific film-within-film newsreel parody overall (including intentional scratches and, reportedly, edited by RKO's newsreel department, to make it look authentic), a shot of construction of Xanadu is cobbled together from an actor in the foreground, stop-motion trucks in the middle plane, and the matte painting of the mansion atop the hill. There's also the pre-"Forrest Gump" (1994), pre-"Zelig" (1983) insertion of Kane into archival footage. Other treated shots include the camera moving through the window of the El Rancho nightclub for Susan Alexander Kane's scenes, the downward tilting shot from the miniature statue of the Thatcher library, the tilt upwards to the rafters of the workers reacting to Susan's singing, and rear projection and multiple-exposure compositions being employed where the deep, or pan, focus was otherwise impractical, such as when there were figures extremely close to the camera and in the extreme background with another plane for the middle action--the shot of young Kane through the window playing in the snow, the three-tier composite of Boss Getty observing Kane's campaign rally, Leland's firing, Susan's suicide attempt, the shot with the parrot, e.g. Of course, these effects were in service to what was already a uniquely-photographed picture.

With good reason, Welles shared the final screen credit with his cinematographer. According to Toland, the demands of deep focus and stagings and camera angles that included ceilings necessitated some unusual lighting setups, and the film has also been credited for the first extensive use of coated lenses and a new film stock. Kane walking back to the windows before sitting down in one scene is a standout that plays with perspective while also underscoring Kane's metaphorical position in the world (i.e. he feels small or distant and is literally so in the image). Similar setups are repeated for when Charles walks up to Susan practicing or in their distant exchanges of reverberating dialogue in the large mansion as she puts puzzles together. Shadows act the same way, such as when she's figuratively and literally in his shadow when he insists she continue her career. The effect is a staggeringly unique picture--not only in a showy manner, although there's an undeniable bravado to it all, but also in a way to explore figures in space in the same way as the narrative investigates characters and their perspectives.

The long takes in deep focus to keep all the figures staged in depth in sharp relief--pan focus--as assisted by the optical printer when wide-angle lenses weren't enough, in addition to the unusual angles--especially the low ones featuring ceilings--function to visually depict a plot that is also all about focusing on every character and from every angle, while much still remains in the dark. The visuals are as ambiguous and complex as the narrative: multiple perspectives, with some scenes repeated but appearing differently depending on the narrator, pan focus with figures often obscured, or just turned into silhouettes, by the harsh shadows of the chiaroscuro lighting. We never quite get a good view of the reporter Thompson, e.g., his back usually to the camera and his face in shadows when not, such as in the screening-room scene, which is apt given that he's our surrogate, the unseen spectator within the film. He even wears glasses; he sees through lenses, as we do through the camera. And, in this case, that camera is even more curious than and as much a character as Thompson and isn't slowed down by closed doors or windows and goes through a desk during one point at Kane's childhood home.

Besides Toland, Welles shared credit with co-writer Mankiewicz. The non-linear, kaleidoscopic, sometimes restricted narration and sometimes not, flashback-structured plot, with events repeated from different points of view, including a newsreel overview that mirrors the film proper, remains one of the most wonderfully convoluted film narratives. One may get overly caught up in the story and characters, but as with the imagery, it's the structure of the thing that's brilliant. The Rosebud mystery is merely a device to drive the plot. Kane isn't a character trapped in a snow globe by a single word. Everything here is multifaceted. "You're talking to two people," as he says at one point. He has two wives, two friends, two sleds, scenes are doubled and framed and reflected in visual motifs--glass, windows, doorways and mirrors. Near the end, we get the iconic hall-of-mirrors shot: the film in a nutshell.

Rosebud is also part of but one or two genres in "Kane." It's a detective mystery, but as investigated by wisecracking newsreel reporters, like those who work at Kane's newspaper, it's an entry in the journalism films of the era--"His Girl Friday" (1940) meets noir. It's a fictional biopic, as well as part musical (Susan's opera, the dance number at the newspaper's party), political thriller, Shakespearean tragedy and lighthearted comedy. Welles and the rest of the Mercury Players' background in radio was surely instructive, as it's the sound design that underscores these tonal shifts, equal measure playful and ominous and continually serving as transitions between scenes. The score fits seamlessly, and the editing is often inspired (e.g. the table sequence for the first marriage, or some nice match cuts throughout, as well as managing the mixture of long takes and quick montages), but there's also techniques such as overlapping dialogue and sound bridges used extensively and informed by radio practices. The shocks cuts where shot transitions are accompanied by sudden changes in sound and score may be the best, and there's a visual equivalent with the reveal of background by the sudden removal of foreground objects, such as with the newspaper in Welles' first scene.

Welles and company were already famous for the "The War of the Worlds" radio drama, as well as theatrical productions, so it's no wonder the makeup-enhanced acting from actors new to film was already better than the acting in most films. Like "The War of the Worlds," made infamous as a catalyst of mass hysteria, its reputation only enhanced by fabricated newspaper reporting and inflated mythology, "Kane" demonstrates the power of storytelling, effects, genre and plot--the radio adaptation was so effective, after all, because the fictional news interrupted additional staged programming, not unlike the "News on the March" and other narrative tricks in the film. With the control and freedom granted from the radio-based RKO, Welles and company were able to do something even greater with the recruitment of some of the best talents in Hollywood for the primarily visual art form of cinema. There are reasons it's remained in the conversation as such, whether or not one considers it the greatest film of all time.

It's a difficult undertaking for someone of my generation to watch a film like CITIZEN KANE. Not because it's "too old" or "too boring", but because it has been hailed--almost universally--as the single best motion picture ever made. And while the anticipation of seeing a film with such overwhelming acclaim may be quite exhilarating, actually watching it is ultimately an intimidating and somewhat disappointing experience.

This isn't to say that I thought CITIZEN KANE was a bad film; in fact, I thought everything about it was downright brilliant. From the enchanting performances right down to the meticulously planned camera movements and clever lighting tricks, there isn't a single element of CITIZEN KANE that isn't a stunning achievement in all areas of filmmaking.

CITIZEN KANE's storyline is deceptively simple. Even though the plot unfolds by jumping in and out of nonlinear flashbacks, it is surprisingly easy to keep track of. The straightforwardness and relatively fast pace of the story are what make it seem intimidating. Because everything moves smoothly along without any standstill, it feels like we are being fooled-like there is something much greater that we just can't seem to grasp. As a first-time viewer, I knew from its reputation that there must be *something* that separates this movie from all the others; something buried within its simple plotline that everybody else has seen, but that I just could not seem to get a handle on. And then, during those final frames, that something was revealed, and it all began to make sense. To me, it was these moments of confusion and uncertainty followed by a sense of enlightenment and appreciation that made watching CITIZEN KANE such a meaningful experience.

But no matter how great of a movie CITIZEN KANE really is, it can never live up to one's expectations. Although I do feel that it is deserving of its acclamation, the constant exposure to its six decades worth of hype and praise will invariably set most modern viewers' standards at a height that is virtually unreachable--even if it really *is* the best movie of all time.

Well as a media student myself , i have come across this question many times in books and during lectures. There are simply 3 reasons the film, which was considered as the "Mona Lisa of all films" , created such a legendary appeal upon release in 1941: 1) This was Orson Welles first cinematic debut , even though he had been a huge star in theater , he was given an opportunity few first time directors were permitted to having. He had full artistic freedom and above all power, to direct , produce, write and even star in his own picture. Therefore the film industry and RKO pictures had absolutely no influence in the making of the film and were not to know what was happening on set .Of course this was bound to generate a number of problems as businessmen were curious about the nature and plot of the film , which takes us to the second reason the film caused controversy.

2)One of the main reasons the film posed contentions was because the main character , Charles Foster Kane(Orson Welles), featured a range of similarities with real media mogul and newspaper journalist William Randolph Hurst . Therefore the film was seen as depicting the life , problems and personal relationships of a real person thus fictionalizing his life. Some of the similarities between the two persona's are:

KANE: newspaper tycoon , worked for New York Inquirer , known as the Kubla Khan of Xanadu ,married talentless singer Susan Alexander Kane, he was a political aspirant to presidency by campaigning for governor, bought his wife the Municipal Opera House, Financier Thatcher, and threat Getty's. Hurst: yellow journalist , worked for New York Journal, political aspirant to presidency by becoming governor, married acress Marion Davies, bought his wife Cosmopolitan Pictures, financier JP Morgan , and threat Tammany Hall.

-differences: Susan Alexander Kane( Dorothy Comingdore) leaves Kane later in their life however there was no marriage breakdown for Hurst and Marion.

3) The last reason and most pivotal of all to why the film was regarded the way it was , was due to its technical and stylistic innovations . The film upon its release was misunderstood and unappreciated by critics as they couldn't comprehend many of its elements and were too concerned with its dark and mysterious nature which is one of Welles's characteristics in his films. The film after all was 20 years ahead of its time and was only regarded as a triumphant success upon its second release after the American Film Noir era in the 1950's. His most prominent artistic inventions were: -the low angled camera movements -extreme facial closeups -long uninterrupted shots -chiaroscuro lighting -overlapping dialogue , giving a realistic effect to conversations -subjective camera angles -deep focus shots and depth of field -flashbacks that make up most of the film All the above and more constitute to why the film is so influential to all would be film directors and for why many people regard it as the best film of all time. Lastly we musnt forget the exceptional score by Bernard Herrmann who had collaborated also with the best known director of all time, Alfred Hitchcock , and made him the chillin sounds of strings in Psycho and Vertigo to name a few . In addition the superb photography of Gregg Toland in regards to Welles's unique eye on details. After all he wanted to put in each shot everything the human eye can see if they were present.

There are many areas of the film which are crucial , these are some of the most important , and as you can see there is never too little or too much that you can add to this masterpiece .

On the Criterion Collection DVD of Orson Welles' classic "Citizen Kane" there is an original theatrical trailer where Welles cleverly advertises the film by introducing us to the cast including the chorus girls, whom he refers to as some nice ballyhoo. That pretty much sums up my opinion of the often over analyzed film that always shows up at the top of the list of greatest films ever made. Even though this was the first time I sat down to watch the film as a whole, I knew everything about it from studying it in film class and from the countless number of essays, homages, and parodies that have come down the pike over the years. It seems impossible now to judge the film against a blank slate, but with great ballyhoo comes great scrutiny.

Released in 1941 by RKO as a Mercury Theater Production, "Citizen Kane" is the tale of an influential and shockingly wealthy newspaper tycoon (Welles) inspired by the life of William Randolph Hearst. The story follows the investigation into the origins of "Rosebud"-the mysterious word Kane utters on his deathbed. Following newsreel footage announcing Kane's death, we are then thrust into a series of flashbacks through interviews with various people who knew Kane that reveal the nature of his character.

From a technical standpoint, Welles' film is as innovative and engrossing today as it was yesterday. Every single piece of cinematic trickery, every dissolve, every long tracking shot, every seamless edit, every play with chronology, every special effect is perfect. Welles was audacious and inventive with his art, and it is for these technical aspects that "Citizen Kane" will always stand the test of time.

However, the story of "Citizen Kane" remains cold and distant. I didn't instantly connect with the characters and the plot the way I did with other classics from the period like "Casablanca" or "The Third Man" or even more recently, "There Will Be Blood." Often, the supporting players over-act, and the flashbacks are tedious (especially the one detailing Kane's second marriage) or emotionless (like the scene showing Kane's snow covered childhood). There's a certain smug arrogance to the whole production that makes it seem like perhaps Welles was secretly making a comedy. It leaves one wondering how it would've come across had Welles actually been allowed to do a straight up biopic of Hearst.

Is it any wonder that so many critics today hail this as THE all time great? Much of today's cinema is geared towards style and technique over substance, and way back in 1941, Welles was the first to author this very modern brand of cinema where the art is not in the story but how it is told and shown to the audience. His "Citizen Kane" is technically rich, layered, and enthralling but narratively vapid. Did I ever really care about Kane or Rosebud? No, but it was fascinating to watch. It's some very nice ballyhoo indeed.

Citizen Kane is a film with epic characteristics, and was at least 30 years ahead of his time, let's start by spectacular Gregg Toland photography, which for me is one of the top 5 best film photography, all the camera angles, metaphors, editing, close-ups, the use of natural and artificial light, mounts scenarios are something inexplicable (Remember Kane's speech), J. Mankiewicz script is great, using flashbacks (something new in time) and the timeline in your favor, I really can not say if this film was the first film to use these narrative resources, I think not, but it sure was one of the first to use a magnificent way, the soundtrack it is accurate, and the performances are very good, especially the Orson Welles doing a magnificent job, as director and actor, worth a reference scenes "Post credit" which explains that all the actors are new, cool also speak the name the cinematographer Gregg Toland is credited alongside Orson, Citizen Kane marked the history of cinema as we know it, so you go to see the movie today will notice that most of the "things" are very common nowadays and did not understand why the film is so prestigious, but remember that citizen kane invented this pile of "things."