I’ve been reading quite a bit about this movie in excerpts collected in Roger Ebert’s Book of Film. When I first saw this just out of high school, the story didn’t capture me and I had barely seen any other classic films, so I had no context. Now that I finally re-watched Welles’ first feature to give it another chance, it has been bumped from its 50 year reign as Sight & Sound’s best film. One of the things I read about this film is that it uses an exponentially greater number of shots than was common for movies at that time or for quite a few years after. The use of imitation newsreel footage, unique camera angles, and the narrative structure are all impressive. Welles is obviously showing off with camera techniques and age makeup (it isn’t that great on him, though is better on Cotten and Sloane), but I still feel that the story doesn’t grab a hold of me. I find it to be a much sadder story now, and Charles Foster Kane is not quite the villain I was led to believe he was. I appreciate the technique more and the multiple narrative flashbacks, as the reporter tries to piece together who Kane was, kept me better engaged. However, the concept of hearing a story from people with differing points of view does not come across as well as in Rashomon in my opinion.