Is "Citizen Kane" always going to be "The Greatest American Movie"?

Cafe Society
1

The AFI hullabaloo is obviously the most mass-marketed “ranking” of American film, but no matter their motive I think almost everyone agrees that Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane is rightly ranked as the “Greatest American Film”. This thread isn’t about whether or not that film deserves to be considered the greatest American film, but whether or not it can reasonably be deposed from that title.

In my opinion it will always be there unless some truly radical changes occur in film, and even then the change may be so radical that the “new style” is seen as a completely different art form that can’t be compared with “old style” films. Here’s my reasoning:
[ul]
[li]In my experience, very few people list Citizen Kane as their favorite film. But as anyone who seriously appreciates art knows, there is a difference between recognizing the greatness of an artwork and personally liking it. Thus, Citizen Kane is the kind of film that isn’t anyone’s favorite, but it in everyone’s personal top-ten, and I think this is because people have learned to recognize objective features of the film that demonstrate its greatness, features which are unlikely to fade over time (I believe, in fact, that its greatness was not recognized until much later than its release, as a result of a growing body of serious film criticism thru the 1950’s). In short, I doubt it will be deposed as a result of changing tastes.[/li][li]I’ve had some trouble determining a consensus pick for “best American film” prior to the appearance of Citizen Kane. The top contenders IMO are either Chaplin’s City Lights or The Gold Rush (#2 and #3 on the 1952 S&S poll behind only the Italian film Bicycle Thieves; since then, Kane has always held the #1 position). My sense is there wasn’t really a broad consensus similar to what we see now with Kane, and even if there was it didn’t last nearly as long as Kane’s has. In short, if possible contenders like The Godfather were going to take away the title, they would have done it by now, so any claimant is going to have to be a film not yet made.[/li][li]Kane is more than a very very good film; it is groundbreaking in ways that every student of the movies is familiar with. Part of this is surely because so much of the technoilogy used in 1940’s moviemaking was new; Welles’ genius lay in applying this novel toolkit (and, of course, his familiarity with the dramatic potential of sound itself from his radio career) in new and unexpected ways. To put it glibly, the undiscovered pallette of 1940’s film technology was a perfect chance to show off originality. It’s hard to imagine any new technology–which doesn’t drastically alter the form itself–could provide this same pallette. CGI perhaps, but so far even well-respected CGI spectacles like the Lord of the Rings trilogy haven’t done it (that’s not a knock on LoTR; it’s hardly a criticism to say a movie is not as original as Citizen Kane).[/li][/ul]
Taken together, I just don’t see how–if people are still making films in 2107–*Kane will not be regarded as the greatest American film masterpiece, akin somewhat to Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the one Elizabethan-era play you can be sure everybody knows.

2

It has acquired the “conventional wisdom” label of “the greatest American movie” yes. Even if other films come along that are considered superior, it will still have that label, perhaps modified to “in the 20th century” or something like that.

Just like the virtually-unread *Ulysses * is consistently held up as the greatest novel ever written (or some variant, such as the greatest post-modern novel, etc…).

Just like Einstein is regularly held up as the greatest genius of the 20th century - you can argue for other folks credibly, but that is the conventional wisdom.

So it goes.

3

Isn’t it The Godfather?

4

One more thing you haven’t mentioned: Kane is a damned good story, with more quotable dialog than any serious film other than Casablanca*. The characters are well drawn and the arc of Kane’s life, his change from idealistic newspaper publisher to sad old man trying to bully everyone, is fascinating.

There’s also just good conventional storytelling.

In addition, the film is visually stunning: the scenes over the breakfast table, showing the collapse of his first marriage are still brilliantly done. The montage of the opera performance tells the audience what is happening just by the visuals (especially the shot of the two stagehands above the stage). It’s amazing that a first-time director has such a good grasp of how to tell a story visually.

I’m sure it will retain the title of one of the top 20th century films (if not number 1) for centuries.

5

Another thing Citizen Kane has going for it is its sheer age. In much the same way The Beatles or Babe Ruth immediately elicit a chorus of yeah, buts any time a more modern practitioner is compared to them, Citizen Kane now has the unbeatable advantage of the era in which it was made. All of its accomplishments are more admirable, its flaws (if any) excusable, and the accomplishments of later films diminished by comparison.

6

It would be unbelievable for any American film to knock it off because of the nature of film financing. Not least of the amazing facts about Citizen Kane is the fact that it was the first movie that Welles directed and the first he or any of the stars acted in and he did so working for a major Hollywood studio. I am guessing that if you went to a major studio today with the idea of making a movie based on the life of William Randolph Hearst the first questions anyone would ask is “who plays the girl?” Can we get Nicole Kidman? And how about Brad Pitt as Hearst? Does he have to die at the end?

7

Actually, Hearst was still alive at the time the film was made. A more apt comparison for 2007 would be approaching a studio with a script for an unflattering pseudo-biopic of Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner, in which the title character dies. And the studio’s response would not be to ask about Nicole Kidman or Brad Pitt, but to have their team of libel lawyers stuff you into a burlap bag, drag you off studio grounds, and beat you senseless with their pocket protectors.

8

Aside from technology, there is the question of movie language and cineatic conventions. I remember a doper telling how Bollywood films for example can use backdrops to convey emotions (where a western director would’ve used for example music or lighting). If Citizen Kane set the standard for modern movie making, a new movie could come along to set a different kind of standard. This is all hypothetically speaking, of course.

I imagine for example an era of in movies where non sequitr makes sense or where color displays are used as a form of communication. Do you all imagine movies to be the same in 200 years as it is today?

9

Orson Welles was a genious and as all such, he did his best work in his youth.

CK is alwaysused as an example of how brilliantly OW used new techniques (deep focus, angles, lighting), but the amazing thing about it is the storytelling. Conventional storytelling have the protagonist go in three or five acts. The setup, the confrontation, the conclusion, and variants thereof. The protagonist has to be a hero, likable and an Achilles’ heel to overcome, to make him more human and further the drama. By modern Hollydumb standard, the hero is not allowed to kill the antagonist, who will die at the end (in a showdown in an old warehouse/factory or construction site of a high-rise) by his own doing.

Welles has a protagonist that is not very likable, a storyline that jumps back and forth, a tale of human weaknesses, a plotline that changes focus depending on who’s telling the story.
It really is a remarkable effort, not only for its time, but for any time.

A lot of directors/screenwriters have borrowed/stolen from him, but in the 67 years since its opening, I still haven’t seen anything remotely approaching the way he turned everything upside down.

It’s not just a superb movie because of this or that. In fact it’s awkward and clumsy at times, the acting is wooden and Welles himself as a lead is thoroughly lacking. BUt the same could be said of the Divinia Comedia, Paradise Lost, Faust or Mme Bovary. Those works have a lot of flaws, but have earned their way into the pantheon of arts, simply because they changed our perspective of what art is.

Citizen Kane has a well deserved place there, if only to show posterity that movies too, are art. Not just a gimmick to sell Happy Meals, even though that accounts for the majority of the releases

10

…other than “Rosebud”… I have never heard anyone quote anything else from that movie. And taking a look at the quotes page… I see some good lines… but I honestly have never heard them outside of the movie.

11

There’s more than one credible critic who acknowledges The Searchers as The Great American Film. Personally, I lean more in that direction. While I certainly appreciate what’s valuable about Citizen Kane, it doesn’t resonate for me the same way that The Searchers does.

12

You people.

Office Space is quite clearly the greatest American film.

13

In response to the title of this thread:

Yup.

14

actually i know he was alive, since he singlehandedly prevented the movie from winning best picture over “How Green was my Valley.” (I would have preferred “The Maltese Falcon” myself.) He also refused to accept ads for the movie, causing it to be a box office failure. Hey if you were making fun of my girlfriend in a movie i would have done the same thing. My point was if you take a world class screenplay to a studio executive he is apt to want a different ending regardless of the ending already written.

15

You forgot the Roman numeral “II”.

16

What is the criteria for becoming “The Greatest American Movie”? Do you have to be revolutionary? Entertaining? Say something profound about American society?

I think all three sounds about right.

The last movie that might have all three was The Godfather. It was about immigrants and their attempt to achieve the American dream. It was entertaining, but I could not tell you if it was revolutionary film making or not. I don’t know what movies were like back then or what kind of influence The Godfather had on future movies.

The most recent movie I can think of that came the closest was Pulp Fiction. It was revolutionary and entertaining, but it lacked any profound statement about American society.

I don’t know how Citizen Kane was made, but both the Godfather and Pulp Fiction were made in instances were executive control was weak. Tarantino had almost total control over Pulp Fiction from Miramax after making Reservoir Dogs. Paramount was near bankrupt when making the Godfather so it put an unusual amount of fate in Coppola (not without some bickering of course) to allow him to make the movie he wanted.

I guess the next great film would have to come from such instances where executive control over feature films is limited and there is cheap and dedicated talent (like Coppola and Tarantino) waiting around.

17

Given that the Academy Awards voting was and is done by secret ballot, how did Hearst pull off that magic trick? And how was it he was unable to prevent the Academy from awarding the Best Screenplay Oscar to Citizen Kane?

18

he was able to do it because he controlled the press in Hollywood, a bad word from louella parsons or hedda hopper, both under his thumb, could put an end to a promising film career, just as (in the view of some), a push in the right direction could make Marian Davies an almost star. if you think everyone in Hollywood was not in fear of hearst you are mistaken. That is not to say he was hated, invites to San Simeon were prized and noone seemed to have an ill word to say about marian Davies. In fact Welles said he regretted making the davies figure in kane so pathetic. Any book on the period can confirm this for you. Why Mankiewicz and Welles won for best screenplay is a mystery. But at the awards themselves, Kane was nominated for 9, the audience booed every time the movie was mentioned. Maybe there were some rebels who, knowing it was a secret ballot, decided to cast one for Welles.

19

You still haven’t explained how Hearst was able to divine how people voted on secret ballots.

20

he did not “divine” how the ballots would be marked, he knew that few in hollywood would cross him and risk financial ruin. i don’t know specifically how it was accomplished, or even if it was done per a specific order, but i know he would have been happier if it lost than if it won. maybe people only voted no on kane because that is what they knew he wanted without any specific reward being offered. i am only repeating what i have read. i wasn’t there. what has been reported is that hearst routinely traded visits to his various “castles” in exchange for gossip for his gossip columns. if you crossed him your name was mud for hedda hopper and louella parsons would then attack you relentlessly. if you saw “L.A. Confidential” with the Kevin Spacey character or the Burt lancaster/Tony Curtis movie that I cannot remember the name of you realize that gossip in Hollywood was currency.

who knows what would have happened had kane won best picture, or what did happen after it won best screenplay, but in both cases i would be willing to bet there was no mention in a hearst paper about either result.

if you need more specific information read a book and do your own research.