Citizen Kane (1941)

1) For Citizen Kane, director Orson Welles was given carte blanche from RKO studios. Explained by our Flashback text, this incentive allowed Welles total control over the film once it was approved by the studio (p. 198). He never needed to show dailies to executives for approval, and as such, Citizen Kane is the untainted product of an auteur. One whose most famous work revolutionized cinema by packing all the most innovative techniques of the time into one ambitious package. Welles, with the help of The Grapes of Wrath cinematographer Gregg Toland, masterfully utilized deep-focus cinematography, chiaroscuro lighting, unorthodox camera angles, and lighting styles taken from his past work in live theater. In terms of narrative structure, Welles told the story of Charles Foster Kane through a “sophisticated style” of intertwining flashbacks from different characters who knew him (p. 198). As a whole, Welles’ style in Citizen Kane is described by our textbook as a “visual mixture of John Ford and Sergei Eisenstein, with a sense of daring” (p. 199). Incredible praise for a 25-year-old’s first feature film. The film, however, was not as well received at the box office as it was by critics. The less than subtle comparisons between protagonist Kane and real-life newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst led to a barrage of bad press and legal efforts to block the film. Hearst understandably saw Citizen Kane and its doomed hero as an attack on his own life and character. The film was not a financial earner for RKO, but what it lacked in dollars it made up for in critical prestige. Today it is regarded as a masterpiece of technical craft for cinema and for its powerful story of “disillusionment and the petrifying nature of power” (p. 199). The film was just recently dethroned by Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo as the greatest film of all time in Sight & Sound’s once-a-decade poll.

2) Article URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/05/citizen-kane-at-70-the-legacy-of-the-film-and-its-director/237029/1/

  

This article from The Atlantic is a look back at Citizen Kane and its director Orson Welles as well as an analysis of the film’s legacy 70 years after its 1941 premiere. Its opening paragraph references the New York Times original 1941 review of the film which hailed it as “one of the greatest (if not the greatest) motion pictures of all time.” The unprecedented deal given to Welles by RKO is brought up; labeled the “Holy Grail of filmmaking.” A three-picture deal and a large budget and final cut of Citizen Kane, his first film. The result was worth it. One critic cited in the article articulated Kane’s massive contribution to film with the following: “Overnight, the American cinema had acquired an adult vocabulary, a dictionary instead of a phrase book.” The career of Welles before becoming a filmmaker is also detailed, going back to his great success on Broadway. His reworking of classics such as Macbeth, with an all-black cast, and Julius Caesar, set in Mussolini's Italy, were critical triumphs. Opening up his own theater, the Mercury Theater, to rave reviews, Welles moved his Mercury cast to radio. It was here that his fame ballooned with the infamous production of The War of the Worlds, which convinced a great number of listeners that an alien invasion was actually occurring. It was off the success of this radio program that Welles was handed “the keys to Hollywood.” The article goes into greater detail about Citizen Kane, reconfirming the known animosity between Welles and Hearst and the film’s enduring of “journalistic scandalmongering.” Concerning craft, the article credits Kane’s narrative style with transforming screenwriting and its technical detail for overwhelming “the senses of audiences for seven decades.” Cinematographer Gregg Toland is recognized for playing a major part in realizing Welles' visual goals. Welles is quoted praising Toland as the “greatest gift” a director could have. At the end of the article’s take on Kane comes acknowledgment of its most studied aspect: deep-focus photography. This technique kept everything in frame in focus and challenged audiences to “search the screen for crucial pieces of the puzzle.” Examples are listed such as the fireplace in Kane’s mansion. It begins as a fixture in the background and turns massive when Kane steps next to it, emphasizing his imprisonment to his own riches. The article concludes by briefly describing Welles' later career and how it never again reached the pinnacle of Citizen Kane. Respect is paid to Welles by way of quotes from other famous personalities. Film critic Roger Ebert calls him the "Great Man.”

3) Having done little research on Orson Welles previously, I was curious about his later films. The article from The Atlantic clued me in on what become of his endeavors post-Kane. His first film after Kane was The Magnificent Ambersons, a work that Welles would later disown as it was “butchered by the studio (RKO)” as a result of “unfavorable test screenings.” Welles was unable to fight to have the film left untouched because he quickly left for Brazil after submitting the final cut in order to shoot the documentary It’s All True for the U.S. government’s war effort. When he returned from Brazil, RKO claimed he went over budget and fired him. Journalists turned on Welles, and his career never recaptured a Citizen Kane level of buzz. The article points to the treatment of Welles’ unfinished works as proof of his ascension from “filmmaker to immortal.” Just like art thieves might steal a painting, sealed reels of Welles’ unfinished Shakespeare adaptation The Merchant of Venice have been stolen. Heated bid wars go on over the rights to his incomplete works. Not because of an intention to make money, the reels would disintegrate if exposed to air, but to have the pride of ownership. The mere scraps of Welles’ work are considered art. Film museums like the one in Munich proudly house pieces of his films, just shots, to be appreciated. Any lost footage shot by the auteur that is discovered is cherished. Having read this, it was no surprise to me that his final film, The Other Side of the Wind, has been fought over for decades. With so many claiming rights to it, from Welles’ partner Oja Kodar to the Welles estate to Welles’ daughter Beatrice to a relative of the Shah of Iran, the film has remained locked away in a Parisian vault. Welles left behind detailed instructions as to how the film is to be edited and personally chose director Peter Bogdanovich to complete it. Since no resolution to the battle for the film’s rights has come, it will continue to be kept from the public. Should it be released for proper editing, a fear exists that anyone who touches it will be “blamed for ruining it.” Such is the value placed on the work of a man who has earned many a film lover’s undying devotion. Judging from my viewing of Citizen Kane, I’d say it’s deserved.

4) Of all the films we’ve seen thus far in class, Citizen Kane is the most modern. Not simply because it was shot later than the previous films, but because its style and presentation is so beyond ahead of its time. This film could be made today, in color with updated acting, and still meet incredible reviews. I found myself watching the movie not with the eyes of “old film appreciation” but with genuinely interested, engaged, and impressed ones. The film did not feel old to me, and it’s because of what I keep reading over and over again. Citizen Kane had a pioneer’s vision, looking to the future of filmmaking. I agree with our Flashback text’s assessment that what distinguishes Citizen Kane “is its energy, its air of command combined with youthful vivacity" (p. 199). That energy and youthful vivacity exuded new life and new ideas. The end result for Welles’ debut film was an exciting reinterpretation of what film could be. While not as sweeping or lavish as Gone With the Wind, it’s every bit as ambitious and grand in its delivery. Orson Welles’ performance in front of the camera is also every bit as iconic. A man brought to his demise by self-assurance, lost amidst his own wealth and power, and unable to connect to the feelings of the women he loved, Charles Foster Kane was a fantastic character whose charisma and charm masked a growing rot deep inside. The choice to explore this character through flashbacks initiated by people of Kane’s past painted different parts of a great picture. We get a full sense of who this man is and why he fell from so high. It’s interesting that those who remembered him are in pretty poor positions themselves, as if crossing paths with Kane led them down less than desirable roads. This was how strong a force Charles Foster Kane was, and it showed in the way he exploded off the screen or loomed over audiences in such scenes as the famous political rally with that amazing illustration of Kane raised high over the man himself speaking passionately below. The film was packed with such resonating visuals. The shot of Kane standing alone in the doorway down the long hall after Susan leaves him sticks in my head. The sophisticated presentation of this tragic character’s life was just a joy to behold. Welles was channeling all of his skills honed on Broadway when he made Kane. It’s great to look at, to learn from as a fledgling filmmaker, and to be in awe of. It has to be the greatest debut of a director ever. Yes, of all the films we have seen thus far in class, Citizen Kane is no doubt my favorite. It tells its story with a skill and vigor so palpable it’s hard not to get caught up in its power.