Quarto potere

The movie Citizen Kane was loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst. The movie begins with the death of Charles Foster Kane, who was the editor of the New York Journal. He says the name rosebud and drops a crystal ball, which falls to the ground a shatters. News clips are shown about the different occurrences in Kane's life depicting how Kane acquired his fortune. Throughout the whole movie reporters are trying to figure out what the word rosebud meant and why it was the last word he said before he died. The reporters find people who knew Kane throughout his life trying to get information from them that would put some sense to Kane saying `rosebud' as his last word. Many of the stories told by the people interviewed show the audience a lot about his life through flashbacks. One of the opening scenes is that of Kane's mansion called Xanadu. It has a sign that says `no trespassing' that is hung from the outside gate. The shot is very dark and gloomy, hinting that maybe Kane's life was the same way. He was a very power-hungry man that went from being at the top to rock bottom. Many other movies have definitely taken note to style and effects of this movie. The camera work, lighting, acting a music contributed to making Citizen Kane one of the best American movies of all time. Orson Welles deserves all the credit that he receives from this movie. He was the leading character, producer and director; basically a one man show that still many of us appreciate. I thought that this movie was well done. It had so much symbolism that made the movie unique, although if you didn't know what was symbolic during the different scenes it would be hard to follow, but most of the symbolism is easily recognized. One of the best symbolic scenes that also foreshadows is when Kane is at the top of the stairs and he is told that he lost his position and as he walks down the stairs the camera is shooting from at the top and it looks like a spiral showing that Kane's life and career are out of control. Citizen Kane was very dramatic and all who took part in the movie played their roles well. The characters seemed very real and believable making this movie very memorable. This film has features that every movie should try to incorporate; symbolism, great actors, interesting storyline, excellent camera shots, lighting and sound techniques. I think everyone should see this movie at least once in their life time because it is one of the greatest American movies of all time.

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.

There's a man who had the world within his grip, he was the captain and director of his ship, built an empire through the news, no one challenged or refused, but such ego is quite blind to slips and trips. It all began when a young child was pulled away, from normality, from sanity, from his play; to become manipulator, fabricator, a dictator; and every day, people would pay, for what he'd spray. Without distractions he may well have been crowned king, taking everything and more that he could win, but the heart can override, lead to diatribe, broadside, and a palace becomes a prison, and he's locked in.

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.

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.