I think it’s the ambitious nature of the film. It screams I am a great movie, in the sense that everything and the kitchen sink is in it. Later Fellini and Kurosawa films take up a similar stance. Plus, it’s about a larger than life protagonist, which goes a long way toward making it memorable in people’s minds. Are there subtler and more balanced films? Sure. But when you consider how much Welles enriched the language of film in Kane, I don’t think its fame is at all undeserved. It remains an inexhaustible fount of inspiration, a Protean touchstone for renewing one’s awe and love for the medium. As Godard said of Welles, “We all owe him everything.”
While I can’t really say anything definitive (as my theoretical and practical film knowledge is much more limited than the average user’s), for me what stands out is its minor form of codification of various kinds of film grammar, style, and technique that had developed to 1941. That being said, little that Welles does is really anything new. Rather, in the words of Andrew Sarris in “You Ain’t Heard Nothin’ Yet” , it just wasn’t done so relentlessly. Renoir did deep focus (with more diegetic meaning and precise timing) in La Grande Illusion and especially The Rules of the Game and some of the best, most creative art direction goes all the way back to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari but Welles just came along and incorporated all of these elements into one big package (amply aided by the genius structural/writing mind of Herman J. Mankiewicz).
What makes it such a darling for enthusiasts, critics, and filmmakers is (to quote another critical heavyweight) that it’s a “shallow masterpiece”; it doesn’t demand the same sort of attention and repetition that say Last Year at Marienbad or The Rules of the Game (in my opinion) in order to discover its brilliance. Compounded upon this is that Welles doesn’t really hide especially deep meanings in the film, in favor of doing things that look really cool (at which he succeeds most admirably!), and he did them in a very unique and creative way. This approachability is what gives Citizen Kane a sort of unique ability to be seen as something really great without ever bothering the viewer with such stupid questions like “why?”: The reasons are all out there on the surface. The second component is that there is just so much technique (that, it should be added, is not for the sake of technique, but for narrative service) and visually and emotionally striking that it became the cultural standard film-to-rip-off. To be honest, I couldn’t enumerate the reasons why just that it was a confluence of things that ultimately weren’t the film on its own merits that elevate Citizen Kane to the level it has acquired.
[On a personal note: I myself would most likely prefer The Magnificent Ambersons which, while not as technically dazzling, has moments of really great direction that Citizen Kane doesn’t quite live up to {the whole ballroom sequence is brilliantly directed and photographed}, but I have reservations because of both its length and its scope; it has more meaning, yes, but I’m hesitant because there could be so much more to the film if we ever saw the entire thing].
Whenever people talk about the greatest anything the discussion invariably winds up being somewhat academic and hair-splitting. I rank “Citizen Kane” and “Rules of the Game” as two of the greatest, and it’s hard for me to say one is actually better or more interesting or lively or meaningful than the other. There are legitimate objections that can be raised against Kane, ways in which it suffers by comparison to others — but there are so many other ways in which Kane trumps almost any comparison. Whenever this topic comes up, my own defense is that Kane is the most consistently interesting and entertaining and inspiring film I know. There isn’t a single minute of it — in my opinion — that drags, and there isn’t a single scene in which Welles and Toland weren’t saying to themselves “What’s the very best possible way to shoot this?” There’s so much ambition in it, and it impresses me every time I see it, even when I know what’s coming, I’m still dazzled. I think that’s why it has infected so many directors. The best movies remind you of what film can do. The best movies makes you want to make movies. I saw a terrific little 2007 film over the weekend titled “Ballast,” and if you heard me describe it — poor black family in the Mississippi delta, struggling to get by — it would sound very conventional, but it wasn’t conventional, and it wasn’t conventional because the director so completely felt his story that you could feel it in every frame. The story inspired him, and watching it inspired me. It put me in a world I believed in and cared about, and I couldn’t wait to see what happened next. It wasn’t Citizen Kane, but it had that same sense to it, that same drive, a drive that said I must tell this story, and I must tell it in the clearest, sharpest and most deliberate manner possible.
citizen kane lost the best picture award to how green was my valley. which is good, but overly sentimental and not new in any way. that just goes to show how much the audience wasn’t ready for a movie like citizen kane yet.
it changed the language of film forever.
how many films can say that?
i personally think the passion of joan of arc is the best film ever made, but i might be blinded by the emotional experience of it.
Well, both Rules of the Game, and Citizen Kane, to my knowledge, utilized depth of field which made one a harbinger of greatness, and the other some french movie that was easily toppled by Welles’ status as that guy who read War of the World’s and helped cause unintended panic. Plus, Welle’s was how old when he did it? 26, 24? I’m not sure, but at that age, age is definitely taken into account as genius. But I don’t think it’s one of the greatest movies ever made, and damn well not the best. It’s an American novel, or play put to celluloid and sold as someone else said, as a “larger than life” testament to the power of cinema. Are you sure Godard didn’t say that about another director? Like Dreyer, or DW Griffith? If we owe anything to anyone it’s those two.
Because it achieves the greatest balance of technical achievement, intelligence and sheer entertainment value of any film. Because it’s one the sharpest, most quotable scripts of an era when writers still knew the value of wit. Because it’s one of the greatest quintessentially american stories. Because strip away all the ‘importance’ and it’s as watchable and alive as any film of any era. Because it has arguably the greatest influence of any film and has influenced more films than probably any other (even in the new millenium, Changing Lanes brazenly rewrote the ‘girl on the ferry’ speech a scant seven years ago). Because Charles Foster Kane has never ceased to be relevant (exhibit a: Rupert Murdoch). Because the Simpsons have used over half the scenes in the movie for visual inspiration. Because every one of those scenes is fantastic. Because Orson Welles is one of the greatest geniuses in american artistic history and nearly all of his talents are on display in one brilliant 2 hour block. Because I’ve never seen a convincing argument for why any one film is better, only arguments that surely something must be. Because you could watch it with the sound off and be transfixed by the images or listen to it with the picture off and be completely drawn in by the brilliant radio play alone. That’s why personally, I think it’s the greatest film of all time.
It’s not just depth of field or cinematography, which, as others have mentioned, Kane borrows from films going all the way back to the silent era.
It’s the editing.
Much of the action of Kane is delivered in the form of extended “narrative montages,” much more sophisticated than Eisenstein. In fact, Welles created a language of montage that is still pretty much unrivalled. The entire newsreel is a montage; but so is the series of scenes showing Kane’s first marriage disintegrating around the breakfast table. So are the scenes which depict the disastrous opera tour. Whole spans of time pass before our eyes again and again, in a pattern of rise and fall, which mimics the entire movement of Kane’s life. It’s the fluidity of moments and scenes that is so arresting in Citizen Kane, so that one feels as if one were watching a hundred movies crammed into one. Welles’ sense of how to bend and impact the audience’s sense of time/timing is one of the most intoxicating pleasures of watching Kane, and it’s something that even Welles was unable to duplicate in any of his other films.
jay- well, now that you mention it… yeah
You’re right. Like Everest it is there — Rosebud looming over all of American film. (We now know, or think we know, through Gore Vidal, that “Rosebud” was not a child’s sled but William Randolph Hearst’s affectionate name for Marion Davies’ clitoris, but this does not solve the mystery of why the weight of this film is still so heavily upon us.)
I don’t think you can talk about auteur snob theory here because the theory was a decade and a half away.
I think it was so large because the story was so tight, almost Gatsby tight. An original literary achievement in film. And because of Toland’s amazing deep-focus images. Compare it to another fine film of Toland’s, Wyler’s THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES. It is equally beautiful to look at it, and a solid screenplay by Robert E. Sherwood, but it meandered, as most stories do. Kane never does.
But if we’re making a choice between KANE and RULES OF THE GAME for a station on the ladder of greatness, RULES by several rungs.
All hype aside, I doubt it will make our own “sight & sound” poll, let alone come in at number one. We esoterics looking for our angry fix are going to go for the more obscure masterpieces, I bet. (I did, anyway.)
I guess, yeah. I never thought about the editing as it’s take, but for god’s sake I’ll never understand that movie’s appeal, or Welles’ for that matter. Ever. Maybe I just have a vendetta against his popularity, and that so many other films go unheeded when his boot comes down, and how it’s kind of sad justice that he became ignored later on because he obviously had talent to burn, but all I can think about when considering that film is the guy in the office saying “Hey everyone! Come look outside the window!” Which isn’t a very convincing reason to debase anything. But of course you can argue that there are better films. It all depends on what one thinks makes a great film, which is an entirely different thread, but this should be accounted for here, as well. First of all, blah blah blah, it sucks. See? Plus, I have the pretension of saying I’m taking classes on film, so I’ve been studying montage, and things like that and nobody, no-one can stand up to eisenstein, or vertov. So, I agree that Welles stole, like it’s said that all great artists do, which I think is bullshit because if you’re so great you should be resting your laurels on originality than claiming wisdom from what someone else did before. I think it’s a very narrow opinion to think that no film deserves more praise than Kane.
I guess, yeah. I never thought about the editing as it’s take, but for god’s sake I’ll never understand that movie’s appeal, or Welles’ for that matter. Ever. Maybe I just have a vendetta against his popularity, and that so many other films go unheeded when his boot comes down, and how it’s kind of sad justice that he became ignored later on because he obviously had talent to burn, but all I can think about when considering that film is the guy in the office saying “Hey everyone! Come look outside the window!” Which isn’t a very convincing reason to debase anything. But of course you can argue that there are better films. It all depends on what one thinks makes a great film, which is an entirely different thread, but this should be accounted for here, as well. First of all, blah blah blah, it sucks. See? Plus, I have the pretension of saying I’m taking classes on film, so I’ve been studying montage, and things like that and nobody, no-one can stand up to eisenstein, or vertov. So, I agree that Welles stole, like it’s said that all great artists do, which I think is bullshit because if you’re so great you should be resting your laurels on originality than claiming wisdom from what someone else did before. I think it’s a very narrow opinion to think that no film deserves more praise than Kane.
to be completely utterly 100% original in art, you would have had to live in a cave your entire life to not be subconsciously influenced by someone/something else
No one’s 100% original, of course, but to blatantly take and also take the credit is something akin to what people think of Pulp Fiction. Think of what Godard put in Contempt when the husband goes to the theatre to find ideas, and the wife belittles his ambition by saying he should have his own.
Well, we already have some good responses both for and a few against Kane as THE monument in cinematic history. However, the point I am trying to consider, in my own rather retrograde way, is WHY this film is so much better than other great movies of its own time such as Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, or Grapes of Wrath? I could argue, given enough time and more technical expertise on my own part, for the technical brilliance and innovation of any of these films. Were you to check each one out, frame by frame, they are also (to my mind), equally ambitious and deserving claim as ‘the greatest movie’. Is it because these other films were made to be ‘entertainment’ that automatically places them BELOW Kane? Yes, I know of the many cinematic ‘tricks’ in Kane, and value the film highly myself. Yet, story-wise, I don’t think it superior in any way to any of these others. In fact, because its story does NOT grip me to the same extent, I would place it somewhat below these others examples. Is it, then Kane’s technical and cinematic ‘tricks’ that elevates it higher? Or is it perhaps that Kane has a more ironic tone than the others, toward the subject of fame and power, that elevates it higher or seems to make it more relevant? I am still looking for the Rosebud key (thanks MMoore) to why it is the best. Enlighten me further.
bloody double-whammy post – boy, these happen easily.
Bob, I’m not sure why you want there to be one single greatest film, whether Kane or otherwise. Who’s saying it is the greatest? Some dusty poll? I’d never say that Kane was in a league by itself; it’s got a lot of company in terms of great films. I enjoy watching it; it’s a pleasurable experience for me, not a textbook experience. That’s one thing. I would say that it compares with Renoir, Dreyer, Murnau, the whole pantheon. I wouldn’t give up those other guys for Kane, nor would I give up Kane for those other guys.
In terms of these other Hollywood films you mention — Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Grapes of Wrath, etc. — they just don’t seem to me to be in the same class artistically. They are entertaining, semi-serious, middlebrow potboilers, essentially. Most of the great American/Hollywood films have not been commercially successful, in any era. These are just successful, competent productions.
You reveal the argument for Kane inadvertently when you talk about the “story” aspect. Like many great artistic films, Kane is not a film that you watch for its “plot.” It does have an interesting set of narrative arcs, imo, but the totality of the mise en scene dwarfs the idea of getting “lost in the story.” It’s a film of ideas. Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Grapes of Wrath are not films of ideas, although they preach about certain rather basic things: war, injustice, okay, it’s Hollywood philosophy, not real philosophy. Kane can’t be reduced to a simple bromide-like message.
Bob,
As someone who is highly appreciative of style as a form of substance irrespective of whether or not story is, my appreciation for Citizen Kane comes maily for this. The idea is just that the story is something that is abstract; content transcends form. But it’s the confluence of the stylistic choices that went into the film that make it as great a film that it is considered to be. The way the story is told is, I think for assessing a work, as important as what’s being told itself. The idea of a man’s meteoric rise and fall isn’t anything new or superior to a magical tale of a girl who just wants to go home, or the epic story of a household of tradtion. It’s just that Citizen Kane is a really dense and (to use Sarris’s word again) relentless syllabus of tricks and other devices for narrative service that make it the achievement that it is seen as.
But that’s ultimately what makes it what it is: the narrative service. As highly as I think of Man with a Movie Camera all of the tricks in that film don’t ultimately sum to anything other than the greatest cinematic experiment ever filmed. Citizen Kane works as a syllabus of style where Man with a Movie Camera doesn’t as it shows what-works-where for tricks within a narrative. Contrary to what is intuitive, it’s the presence of style in a film that elevates, specifically when style is bound to narrative in an unusual and creative way, which again, Citizen Kane has. [Again, this all gets into the question where does style begin and story/content end, but that’s a different topic… Unless of course this discourse needs to resolve that in some way before it goes further. My though on the matter is that the higher the art, the more blurred the line between style and content is, becuase it indicates the presence of the work as singular to that medium.]
Hey Bob! You bring up a very sound argument, especially when we look at the impeccable craftsmanship and fine storylines of films such as the Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind, among the films you cite. When you refer to the “hype” surrounding Citizen Kane, I guess one could make the same argument if it were, say, The Wizard of Oz that was named AFI’s number one film of all time. Then, one could say, ’What about Citizen Kane? The Wizard of Oz had nothing on that!
I guess the only logical conclusion is, at best, random. Welles did pioneer the bird’s eye and worm’s eye views of its actors in Citizen Kane, as well as other techniques that have since become industry standard. It was not as appreciated a film when it was out, and Welles was considered box office poison. The film lost the best picture award that year to How Green Was My Valley, so I believe the hype surrounding the film was acquired over the last 60 years, similar to that of Kubrick’s 2001: A space Odyssey." It’s withstood the test of time, and is continually being discussed among critics and written about in essays, articles and books. Then again, The Wizard of Oz and Dorothy and Toto are more of a household name than Charles Foster Kane and Rosebud.
Damn, I just don’t know how to answer this one. Another mystery, just like Rosebud.
Matthias: I agree that probably what sets Citizen Kane apart, and others have alluded to this too, is style. Style is indeed substance. As we are followers of style, especially a director’s style, in this forum, we have to rate style the major consideration when considering any film. When I look at the films and filmmakers I love, it is their style, their cinematic way of seeing the world, that really intrigues me. Story or entertainment value is secondary. Perhaps this is what wins us over to Citizen Kane, and those other great Welles pictures – his rich, creative visual style (all credit to Gregg Toland here, too). Perhaps this is what sets it apart, great though these other films are, from my other list of contemporary (to Kane) contenders. Other ideas or points of view?
I brought this topic up because I am a bit conflicted at times myself re Kane, and because I know the heavy burden that the “anxiety of influence” and the canonization of a film can have on our perspective. I trust everyone here enough that their own perspective on this film will not be swayed by the tremendous amount of hype surrounding it. I appreciate everyone’s perspective, either pro or con. Because I usually sit on the fence on this particular film myself, with no strong feelings one way or the other, I value everyone’s insight. I do think that Justin is right – we are so scared of looking predictable, that few are going to put Citizen Kane on their own top ten list on this site – unless it is one of their own personal favourites. I guess it doesn’t really need us, and there are other, perhaps more deserving candidates, out there.
i think its ridiculous to even ask the question “what’s the greatest film ever made”, much less to debate it or have an opinion on it. has anyone ever seen every single film made? that makes the original question a moot point right there.
plus, its such an exaggerated claim, which also makes it ridiculous. its the same as saying “what’s the greatest book ever written?” or painting, or song, or poem. its literally impossible to answer that question.
The answer to “IS CITIZEN KANE THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE OR JUST THE BEST HYPED?” is, of course, a little of both … though hype is usually defined as the PR put forth by the film’s makers and in this case we’re dealing with an abundance of critical opinion, both from people whose job it is to watch and evealuate films and that of other film-makers. The latter is especially telling; if other directors consider CK and OW the greatest, it’s pretty much inarguable to my thinking. More than anyone else they have the knowledge to appreciate what Welles accomplished.
>>In terms of these other Hollywood films you mention — Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Grapes of Wrath, etc. — they just don’t seem to me to be in the same class artistically. They are entertaining, semi-serious, middlebrow potboilers, essentially. Most of the great American/Hollywood films have not been commercially successful, in any era. These are just successful, competent productions. … Gone with the Wind, Casablanca, Grapes of Wrath are not films of ideas, although they preach about certain rather basic things: war, injustice, okay, it’s Hollywood philosophy, not real philosophy.<<
Exactly. In fact on Bob’s original list of titles I can see only two titles that I would even consider the equal of CK, much less superior (GREAT DICTATOR and GRAPES OF WRATH, for the record).
And in the interest of full disclosure, there are 2 or 3 films from Welles’ European period, not to mention TOUCH OF EVIL, that I find superior to CK … but they were not the first ever film of a twenty-something director — that little fact alone makes CK astonishing. Additionally CK would be outranked by Cocteau’s LA BELLE ET LA BETE and, just possible by Eisenstein’s IVAN THE TERRIBLE duo in my personal Top Twenty-Five.
>>In fact, because its story does NOT grip me to the same extent, I would place it somewhat below these others examples.<<
Well, the fragmented narrative combined with camerawork/editing that calls attention to itself guarantees you are not going to become emotionally involved with the characters. Both distance you from them in a Brechtian sort of way and guarantee some dispassionate objectivity; the film will not allow you the easy out of seeing Kane in a tragic light. There’s no cheap sentiment as with GONE WITH THE WIND (for instance).
Welles will never be forgiven for making a film so visually alive, so narratively absorbing and so damned entertaining. That it lost Best Picture to “How Green Was My Valley” typifies what the Oscars really mean — the status quo.
And speakign of same we can see Kane’s" influence in the film that won’t (but of ofurse should) win Best Picture this year — “Milk.”
Speaking as a journalist, editor and cinephile, I have to say that I think Citizen Kane is a Grade B film. I know this runs counter to everyone else’s feelings. I am a great admirer of Orson – I’d pick the Third Man as the best film ever.
But that was Carol Reed’s film. And Harry Lime was actually seldom seen. A fine film of course.
Right — but no “Kane.”
Bob, Mathias and Justin – superb inputs…
For me, despite Citizen Kane’s cinematic brilliance, innovations and topping greatest movie ever lists, it will remain just a good movie, on the other hand I found myself more in awe of the genius of Orson Welles hence I would push him into sight and sounds director poll but not list the movie in sight and sounds movie poll. Perhaps a rare instance of the director bigger than the movie he made.
Justin: “I’m not sure why you want there to be one single greatest film, whether Kane or otherwise. Who’s saying it is the greatest? Some dusty poll?” Just to make it clear how prevalent this view of Kane as the greatest is, I have just done a quick survey of several film lists on the internet. All of these put Citizen Kane on top (there are several more I could site, but this is an example):
Village Voice 100 Greatest Films Critics Poll (Rules of the Game #2, Vertigo #3))
Best Films of All Time – Piero Scaruffi
AFI
BFI – #1 for both Critics & Directors (Critics – Vertigo #2, Rules of the Game #3)
Jeem’s Cinepad 100 Most Acclaimed Movies of All Time
They Shoot Pictures Don’t They (Vertigo #2, Rules of the Game #3)
It seems like there is a kind of universal consensus on this and every other list I have found has it somewhere in the top 10 (Ebert’s lists his top 10 alphabetically, for example).
Because it has been already crowned and canonized as ‘the best’ was why I brought this up. I agree with Bobby and others who say there is no truly objective “greatest movie ever made”, but I think some of the defenders of the film here have pointed out why it is more highly rated critically than Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz and the like. Judging it from several different angles and analyzing this film in detail leads us inevitably to this conclusion. As many have pointed out, this film has had a great influence on filmmaking right up to today.
We are not compelled, of course, to make a collective critical judgment into a personal one. We are still free to place Citizen Kane anywhere or nowhere on our own personal pantheon of favourite films. Ultimately, it is all a matter of our own choice. But, since we live in a critical community, and are subject to that community’s opinions, we must objectively try to judge their validity relative to our own position. I think I have learned from the posters here so far, and anyone is welcome to join in, that we are still free to hold our own view on this or any other film. For many, it will be the epitome of what a film should be. Others will be more lukewarm to it. None of us can deny that it is a significant film in film history and there are many valid arguments why. I still think the major lesson for me is NEVER let the opinions of others sway your own to the point that they ERASE one’s own belief and opinion. Now let our latest auteurs poll decide how we collectively feel about Kane. Citizen Kane will still be here, larger than life, just like Charles Foster/Welles himself, no matter what we, or others, say about it.
and what are we ranking kane against? only other hollywood films? because thats all anyone is talking about.
i’m quite sure there are a lot of people here who think kane can’t hold its own against the supreme masterworks of their favorite international directors.
but then again, that was my point. it becomes more and more subjective the more you think about it.
Bob Stutsman
We all know that Citizen Kane (1941) routinely gets at the top or near the top of almost every critical top ten list in existence (it will be interesting to see if it makes it onto our current the auteurs poll top ten). Is this deserved or not? Did Citizen Kane stand head and shoulders above many other films made during this same period, yet alone, all periods? Let us see what it was up against for films now considered classic in that short time period between 1939 to 1942. We have in 1939, often considered the greatest year for Hollywood film, at least: Gone with the Wind (Oscar best picture), Wizard of Oz, Four Feathers, Ninotchka, Destry Rides Again, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Dark Victory, Drums Along the Mohawk, Hunchback of Nortre Dame (Laughton version), Intermezzo, Stagecoach, The Women, Wuthering Heights, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. In 1940 we have: The Great Dictator, Rebecca (Oscar best picture), Fantasia, Grapes of Wrath, Philadelphia Story. In 1941 we have: High Sierra, Maltese Falcon, Sergeant York, Sullivan’s Travels, Suspicion, How Green Was My Valley (Oscar best picture). In 1942 we have: Mrs. Miniver (Oscar best picture), Welles own Magnificent Ambersons, Now Voyager, Casablanca. I am just considering some of the Hollywood films from this period, for the moment, not the great films being done elsewhere in the span 1939 to 1942 – a time when Europe was plunged into war.
Take classic films from this period, such as Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Grapes of Wrath, Fantasia, and Casablanca and how does Citizen Kane stack up? Is it better technically in terms of script, cinematography, music score, acting, entertainment value than any of these other great films? By 1939, many major innovations were already being incorporated into most film productions. That is why films from this period on still look good today. Certainly, Citizen Kane has many technical innovations to its name, as the many books, articles, and studies of it reveal. Yet, Gone with the Wind, Fantasia, and Wizard of Oz also had many technical innovations and a great look. Which films are the more entertaining or satisfying – emotionally and intellectually? When we consider world cinema, does it still merit top spot – even for this period? Is Citizen Kane better than Rules of the Game (1939)?
I believe the only significant reason that Citizen Kane is rated higher than these other films is because of the hype surrounding auteur theory itself. Because Welles directed, starred, and collaborated on the screenplay, it fits into the perfect definition of an auteur work. Welles used all the innovations of his day in a creative and original way with an intriguing storyline, all revolving around the hidden clue of Rosebud. Still, is this movie better than all the other films mentioned here, yet alone everything that went before it and after? I think if we look at the situation impartially, viewing Citizen Kane strictly as a well-made product of its time, it certainly merits inclusion in any film history for this period, but should not be seen separately from all the other major films of this time. Hype is the only reason it gets picked out above all others. If all the other important films from this period, yet alone world cinema, got as close a treatment, there would be many more contenders for ‘the greatest movie ever made.’