Quarto potere

OK look, let me settle something between those who love and hate this film. A lot of people hail this film because it is technically brilliant and ground breaking. Director Orson Welles did a lot of things visually that no one had ever done before. Nearly every film maker was in some way influenced by this movie. This movie also had a great impact in its time. The title character was based on media giant William Randolph Hearst. He was that generations Donald Trump. He opposed this film so much he did everything in its power to stop its release and almost succeeded. Lastly this film contains some of the strongest and most common themes in literature; Life versus death. It is for these reasons why this film is so revered.

On the contrary people who hate this film mainly complain that it is boring. Which is a legitimate complaint. The story is slow compared to today's standards, and there is no real Hearst character alive today in which to relate. So yes, the story on the surface is outdated. However, this does not make it a bad movie. It was not made as a Matrix/Star Wars type of movie which can be enjoyed even at surface level. This is not pure entertainment. Remember there is more to film than storytelling. This film was designed to be cinematically beautiful and to tell a basic story of love and redemption. There is much more to the story than the thinly veiled attack on Hearst, one just needs to look deeper. Look at Shakespeare or Hawthorne for example, their literary works are universally loved. Yet, many people blow them off because they refuse to look past the outdated language into the beautiful prose and simple ubiquitous themes. Just because something is outdated does not mean it lacks worth in today's world.

My advice to those who did not like it the first time or have not seen it yet is simple. Watch it again for what it is. Do not expect to be on the edge of your seat for two hours. Watch it for the cinematography that alone makes this film among the best (I don't agree with AFI's number one ranking but I think it still ranks high). Look deeper into the story and try to connect with it on some level. At the very least appreciate how influential this film was and where the industry would be without it. If you can do this, then maybe some of the naysayers will change their minds. Again, you do not have to love Citizen Kane, but at least respect it for what it is.

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 .

Citizen Kane is majestic, elegant and noble. It begins at the end, we see a man of obvious wealth and power breathe his last, and then the mysteries of his life are unraveled via a series of anecdotes, barely remembered scenes and highly subjective memories. The boldness of this approach cannot be overemphasized. At the time that this film was made Hollywood was for the most part used to creating straight-forward stories with clearly identified heroes and villains. Kane dared to present Man as he is, rife with confusions, internal contradictions and uncertainty.

As the film progressed, we see Kane, loosely based on William Randolph Hearst, the famous newspaper tycoon slowly sacrifice his ideals in order to build his financial empire, losing his friendships with those who believed in him until ultimately he looses everything he has, his marriage, his friends, and his integrity. Though he is the richest man in the world he lives his remaining isolated in his privately built mountain estate where he has surrounded himself with material pleasures, alone and despairing, one senses that he welcomes death. The film takes the view that wealth and power are inherently destructive of human values. Kane himself states `If I hadn't been born rich I might have been a really great man.

What is so masterful about Kane is its ambiguity. We never are certain if Kane really did believe in the values that he professed. At the same time that he sets himself up as above the world, he longs for the affection of the common people. This is symbolized by his exploitative, and patronizing love for a chorus girl, Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore). Her character is given a paper-thin characterization, the only obvious flaw in a nearly perfect movie.

Orson Wells gives a bravura performance as Kane, both identifying with and condemning the man. This film was his first venture into movie making after the infamous War of the Worlds radio broadcast that threw America into an uproar. Wells, a child prodigy, had a background in Shakespearian theater, offering modernized adaptations of the Classics, a bold and unusual gesture at the time. He brought that kind of sweeping tragic romantic sensibility to his first film.

Unconstrained by Hollywood's traditions, he broke all the rules. The deep focus photography that gives Kane its theatrical look was one of his innovations. A mastery of sound, gained from years of working in the radio was another. Kane is an avalanche of technical innovation, unmatched in any other Hollywood film.

Despite the film's pessimistic outlook, it is studded by moments of joy, beauty and emotional truth. The supporting cast of characters, most of them regulars from Wells' Mercury Theater are also superb. Joseph Cotton is memorable as Jed Leland Kane's close friend who believes in him more then he does. And Everet Slone is wonderful as Kane's would be mentor Mr. Bernstien.

So many scenes in this movie linger forever in the memory, one is left with a stirring vision of the frailty of the human condition, the film gives us no easy answers and while being fiercely critical of many of it's characters is universal in it's compassion and sympathy, this is perhaps the most vital ingredient for great art.

Kane was one of the most controversial films ever made. Hearst, offended by his portrayal, offered RKO a small fortune to destroy the film. When that didn't work his newspapers embarked on a campaign of defamation against Wells, thus proving that the film's criticism of the power and corruption of the press were precisely on target. Wells was never given a free hand to direct how he liked again and American Cinema was deprived of the one of the greatest geniuses to adopt it as a medium of self-expression.

It's influence, was immediate, incalculable and mostly unacknowledged, the film was a box office and critical failure due to Hearst's efforts and it was not until years later that this film got the respect it deserved. Nowadays there is not one living film director of serious artistic intent that has not been deeply influenced by Citizen Kane. It's not just a masterpiece it's a creative touchstone.

Of course there were other talents at work in making Kane, Hermann Mankiewicz's efforts on the script were indispensable and Bernard Hermann, the composer most famous for working with Hitchcock provided the films beautiful music. Still, the film remains most obviously the work of Orson Wells, a veritable hall of mirrors reflecting the great artist's dreams, obsessions and fears. Citizen Kane is not just one of the great works of cinema it is one of the greatest artistic creations of the century

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.