djbeardpaperclip

When I was an art student we had film studies which involved going to a cinema to watch movies which were deemed significant landmarks in the history of film; from Metropolis to Apocalypse Now. I'm not sure how many films we had to watch. I was often late.

One week we were presented with Citizen Kane and I emerged into the gloom of the cinema just as the word 'Rosebud' appeared on screen amongst flickering flames. About two seconds later two other words appeared. The End.

I had absolutely no idea what was the significance of Rosebud or indeed what the film was about. This mystery has always stayed with me for some reason.

45 years later and I have finally watched the film. It took me several goes as I kept falling asleep.

I note all the high scoring reviews lauding the many cinematic innovations. Well maybe so, but somewhat regretfully I'm bound to say that this seems to be a slight case of the Emperor's New Clothes.

It's not a great film. For great cinematography watch The Third Man which is a stunning film. Despite a few memorable shots Citizen Kane - made 8 years earlier - does not delight the retinas in quite the same way.

It is a strange story. A mega-wealthy man seems never to have wanted all the riches he inherited. He finds little or no satisfaction in all these material things that fell into his lap. He was a maverick who couldn't really care if he lost every dime. Such is the privilege of the mega-rich.

He had everything and nothing, and seemingly longed for the simple pleasures he enjoyed before he inherited his obscene wealth. I couldn't warm to his character, nor to any of his wives, friends or associates. Eventually it came once again to the mythical moment where the word Rosebud appears on screen amongst the flames....

Last time, I missed the film but was compelled to want to know the significance of 'Rosebud'. This time I watched the film and was no longer interested in the meaning of the word. All things come full circle I suppose. I now realise that I didn't really miss anything.

There might be a decent film in here somewhere.

Unfortunately the film is spoiled by technical faults. The hand held camera work is clumsy. It really isn't necessary to film everything with wobbly close ups and rapid staccato cuts. But the biggest problem is the sound. Mumbled dialogue is absolutely drowned out by booming thunderous background noise. I couldn't hear half of what was being said, so I simply couldn't follow some elements of the story. As a result I was only half watching after a while.

It was an extraordinary story if true, although it seemed highly unlikely that a witness would have a confrontation with a suspect being interviewed by Police in the manner shown. Did the killer really let the mask slip as shown? Did the killer really go after her again and again, trying to track her down?

The Alaskan scenery is spectacular and the story raises all sorts of questions. But the film is spoiled by poor sound engineering. It's almost unwatchable without subtitles.

The big problem I have with films like this is that they take a factual event and introduce fiction so that it becomes impossible to know what is real and what is not.

In the real assassination several other people who were close to Robert Kennedy were seriously injured in the assassination. In the film these real people are cancelled and swapped for various fictional characters who get injured or killed instead. Why?

All the action takes place in the Ambassador Hotel. The film has a huge cast with almost as many big name actors and actresses as The Longest Day. It's like a soap opera with numerous couples and many other peripheral characters ultimately involved in trivial, fictional and irrelevant sideshows.

Ultimately the film tells us very little about what really happened or why. Instead the audience is offered soap.