I have only seen parts of this, cause I got bored, but I never thought it was good . the lighting is creative but isnt it just a story of Hearst. like the george peppard movie about Howard Hughes. I dont see what makes it “one of the best 5 movies in american history”. please tell me why you like it. I know its a movie and the answer might just be “see it all the way thru and you’ll understand”.
I’ve always thought it was over-rated (and not just because I’m a Marion Davies fan!). Excellent cinematography, yeah; good script, OK. But “the best film ever made?” Not in my opinion—even “Magnificent Ambersons” is a better Welles film, as far as I’m concerned . . .
But it certainly IS worth a look-see. If you were bored, maybe you just weren’t in the mood for it?
Don’t quote me on this, but Citizen Kane, I think, was Welles’ breakthrough film. He was in his 20s when it came out. Not only did he star in it, but he also directed it…and might’ve also produced it. From then on he was hailed as the “Wunderkid” of Hollywood…
I’ve seen it a couple of times, but no, it’s not one of my all-time favorites, despite the moody lighting, scene design, etc. The story is based on William Randolph Hearst, who did everything in his power to blacklist Welles publicly (via his newspapers) after the film came out.
Citizen Kane is one of those movies that has been ruined by its own reputation. (Psycho is another–see the thread from last week.) If people tell you a million times that IT’S THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!! before you see it, then your reaction is bound to be, “Aw, it’s not not that great.” To make matters worse, everyone already knows the twist ending, and many people today just aren’t used to watching '40s movies. The end result is a lot of people who see Kane for the first time just don’t like it.
Nothing wrong with that. Disliking great works of art is not against the law. In fact, hating certain established masterpieces is a healthy sign of independent thinking… Still, you asked for reasons to like it, not hate it, so here are mine:
–It’s one of those rare movies where everything works. The writing, direction, cinematography, (most of the) acting, music–all great. Even the sound was excellent, by the standards of the day.
–It’s an extremely dense movie. Every little scene is packed to bursting with content. (This is one reason why there are so many reference to it in pop culture–there’s so much to refer to.) The scene where Susan makes her operatic debut is a good example of that. As the curtain rises, we pan from a clearly panicked Susan up into the catwalks above the stage, where one of the stagehands makes the “it stinks” gesture. In a few short seconds the movie shows us how both Susan and the world feel about her performance, without using a single line of dialogue.
–It’s a movie with themes that transcend its setting. Kane isn’t just the story of Hearst’s life, any more than the Godfather is just a docudrama about the Bonanno crime family. In fact, you’ll enjoy it more if you forget about Hearst altogether. Kane is the story of good intentions gone awry, of the difference between giving people what they want (things) and giving them what they need (love). That’s what makes it watching in the 21st century, not how it does or doesn’t mimic the life of a long-dead tycoon.
–Last but not least, you need to know your Citizen Kane just to understand the rest of pop culture. Heck, just about every Simpsons episode contains a Kane reference.
justinh, honey, are you unfavorably comparing Citizen Kane to The Carpetbaggers? Um, I’m trying to be polite, but…SNORT! BWA HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
I really, really, really like Citizen Kane. But Wumpus already said everything I was going to say. So, yeah. What Wumpus said. 
Citizen Kane is a truly great movie and a definite consideration for one of the best of all time. Why? A great script, to begin with; few films have more great lines than Kane (maybe “Casablanca”):
“Old age. It’s the only disease, Mr. Thompson, that you don’t look forward to being cured of.”
“You know, Mr. Bernstein, if I hadn’t been very rich, I might have been a really great man.”
“I think it would be fun to run a newspaper.”
“You’re right, I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year. You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I’ll have to close this place in… 60 years.”
And, of course, one of the truest lines ever spoken: “Well, it’s no trick to make a lot of money… if what you want to do is make a lot of money.”
Welles’s direction was groundbreaking. Many of the shots were considered next to impossible (like when the camera “goes through” the window). The use of deep focus was revolutionary, as were the various camera angles. The famous shot of Kane standing in front of his giant campaigh poster is one of the greatest images of film.
The story is fascinating. It’s a rags to riches to rags story about a character who ends up lost and lonely due to flaws in his personality. In addition, the characters are all very well done and sharply drawn.
Finally, Kane is a very sophisticated movie. You need a certainly amount of sophistication in return in order to understand it. I submit that if you don’t like it now, wait a few years and see it again. Then you’ll see just how great it is.
I loved Citizen Kane.
When I first saw it, I ran home to tell my father about this just fabulous movie they’d just shown us at school.
He got this weird look on his face, and said, “You know, your grandfather took me to see that movie when I was ten. It was the only movie he ever walked out of.”
He said it was a pack of lies about William Hearst.
I still like it, though.
Well everybody’s taste is different. One way to appreciate Citizen Kane is to look at it from the perspective of when it was made. While many of the techniques Wells used seem pretty standard to us now, back in 1941 they were absolutely groundbreaking. He was the first to take all of the latest technical & stylistic developments and use them in one film.
I can’t really do justice to Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane in one post, so if you’re really interested in what makes this film special, I highly recommend Roger Ebert’s review of it.
He’s also written an excellent viewer’s guide to Citizen Kane.
I’ve noticed that other posters have mentioned their favorite lines from the movie. I can’t believe that no-one has included Mr. Bernstein’s speech. Not a day goes by where I don’t think of it:
Most often I see Citizen Kane praised for its technical acheivements. Yes, it was well-written, well-directed, well-filmed, etc. My main problem with the film is the characters.
One of the things that suck me into a film is if I get wrapped up in the characers. If I care what happens to them the film will hold my interest. I didn’t care what happened to the characters of Citizen Kane. If you can watch with an emotional detachment, you may be able to appreciate the film. But without caring what happens to the characters (and especially Kane himself) the film bored me.
It was like listening to my mom tell me the unpleasant and not particularly interesting life story about a 3rd cousin who I only met once at a family reunion and didn’t really like the guy that one time I met him. Yeah, it may have been a well told story, but I just didn’t care how it ended.
I can appreciate Kane for what it acheived, but I think it’s vastly overrated.
One thing Welles understood is that movie-making is a visual medium (think about it – sound was introduced much later than moving visuals, and many times it is a film’s visuals, rather than dialogue, that make the greatest impression). The best directors understand this and exploit it. Citizen Kane succeeds very well in this regard.
When I first saw it, it was on a PBS broadcast one evening. I was watching it on an old portable. One with a relatively small screen, probably 13 inches or so.
But even so, I was impressed with how BIG this film is visually. The depth of focus, the great big sets, the close-ups, the lighting, the camera angles and the pans all combine to create a size and scope that was striking to me, watching on a dinky little television set. To see it in a theatrical release would be, I believe, almost overwhelming.
Such size in a film, especially one of that era, is unusual, and for Kane to pull it off puts it head and shoulders above most other films.
Now, remember, I am by no means saying “Citizen Kane” stinks—it IS a superb film. But by no means—in my opinion!—“one of the greatest.”
For one thing, the cinematography was NOT groundbreaking. It had all been done before in the silent era: look at some of the German Expressionist films; Swedish, Russian and Danish films back to the 1910s; and late-silent era American films like “Sunrise,” “The Wind,” etc. But no one sees those anymore, so they get forgotten.
One of the reasons Welles got blacklisted was NOT because he trashed Hearst—but because he trashed Hearst’s mistress, Marion Davies (“Susan Alexander Kane”), one of the best-loved womern in H’wood. Even Welles later admitted he’d done her dirt, and apologized.
I believe we’ve discussed this before, but supposedly Welles took the term “rosebud” from Hearst’s term of endearment for Marion Davis’s clitoris.
I’m with you, Eve. I like “The Magnificent Ambersons” as much, if not more. Several of the actors are the same, with the exception of Tim Holt, who’s not in Kane.