BW: I intentionally limited my discussion of Kane’s other contenders to just a few Hollywood-type films contemporary to Kane. This was done to achieve a close critical focus and not meander all over the place (which I tend to do anyway). Otherwise, we end up comparing it to every film ever made – which might well be your point.
I’ve stated my position above for why I think it is the greatest but I think it would be ridiculous for someone to argue that it’s far better than other exceptional films like Rules of the Game, Seven Samurai, Vertigo, Bicycle Thieves, The Godfather, etc. It’s not. There are several films that are, or nearly are as deserving of that ultimate positiont but who’s to say? People love lists and something has to be at the top and I think Citizen Kane simply has the best one on one argument of any film. Many disagree, maybe even most disagree but it has more supporters than any other contender among the film world at large so it’s consistently hit number one and probably will continue to do so because it’s detractors seem to be split on which particular movie deserves to take it’s place.
Jay: Is it laziness on the part of critics that Citizen Kane always gets this top spot irregardless of what film it is compared with or just the fact it is too big in terms of reputation (=hype) for any other film to knock it off? I can just see other poor films out there saying, “I coulda been a contender, but those @#$%ing judges always are gonna give it to that s.o.b. Kane.” Well, you know what I mean…
Can anyone better contextualize for the thread the significance of going up against Hearst at this point in American history? The sheer ballsiness of Welle’s attack upon contemporaneous (or at the time recent) American politics, class, journalism, and mythology may comprise a huge facet of the films’ appeal, and the electricity of being able to see it closer to its original release and those specific historical issues may just inevitably diminish as history progresses, though our appreciation of the formal ballsiness remains.
@Filmy Andy, thanks!
@Bob, in polls of 100 films, being number 2 and 3 is no disgrace. That’s like saying you didn’t win first prize, two million dollars, but you won second prize, a million and a half. I feel like you are fighting for underdogs who aren’t really underdogs.
I had the misfortune of shopping in a dvd store the other day next to a slackerish couple. You know how you’re browsing and you’re stuck behind someone else, and they’re looking at the shelf you want to look at and you can’t see through them or just muscle them away? They talked about how they couldn’t find anything they wanted to see, and all of their likely candidates were movies like Terminator 2 and Who is Harry Crumb? (the title they ended up buying after ten agonizing minutes). And I, looking at the shelves beside them, saw film after film — films like Irma Vep, 8 Women, Hatari, Kicking & Screaming — films that I wanted to take down from the shelf and shove down their throats. And I knew they’d never watch anything except Hollywood blockbusters and cheap-ass comedies. Like 90 percent of everyone everywhere. And you’re complaining that people like Citizen Kane too much? The world would be a better place if every household owned a copy of Citizen Kane. If it was mandatory viewing before you could pass your driver’s test. You see my point… There are so many worse things out there.
@Bob, per your internet movie lists provided on the previous page, we could also open this discussion to: “ARE VERTIGO AND RULES OF THE GAME THE SECOND AND THIRD GREATEST MOVIES EVER MADE OR JUST THE SECOND AND THIRD BEST HYPED?”
Anyone?
Anyone?
I think that the inability to place within a historical context among many opponents of the film is the biggest mistake one makes when criticizing Kane. While I am in no position to give objective judgment of the film, I think that Kane has reached the pantheon of laudatory film criticism due both to its hype as a spectacle of American filmmaking unencumbered by studio constraints and due to the unconventional stylistic elements that Welles incorporated into it.
It is true that a certain amount of critics place Kane as the pinnacle of film due to how widely regarded it is among colleagues, but a very large amount place it in such a stature due to the influence, technical advances in editing and cinematography, political and social criticism, and blah blah blah
Every artistic medium has a single piece that is held to the highest esteem – Shakespeare’s plays, Mozart’s symphonies, etc. – and Citizen Kane fills that niche within the medium of film. Now a piece does not reach such a stature due to hype alone, but also due to objective critical analysis of its placement within cultural norms of the imposed medium and how it rises above such constraints. Kane is the most recent example of this where a film rises above criticism to become a representation of the medium in which it exists. Yes there are obvious criticisms of Kane, just like there are of any work ever produced, it doesn’t matter why Kane reached its stature, but how. The film bombed at the box office, was booed at the Oscars, had the most powerful man in America trying to ruin the film as best he could, was made by a director who had no previous director credits and was relatively unknown, and was only given a limited theatrical run. But critical reception from non-Hearst papers was strongly positive and managed to secure several Oscar nominations.
But still, many films have been able to acquire both public and critical adulation, won more awards than Kane, and remain as praised today as at their release. So how did Kane do it? Maybe there is no answer; I mean why is Shakespeare taught at so many schools while Joyce is neglected? Why is van Gogh more popular than Pollock? Perhaps the answer simply comes done to not only the film, but the mystery surrounding it. Countless critics have offered multiple theories about what Kane is actually about, each as plausible as the next, so maybe a work can reach a stature of greatness not by being the “best” but by inspiring academic debate that remains unanswerable, but that isn’t really a reason for success either. Does theoretical debate and strong critical praise give rise to laudatory stature or does a work exist independent from the debate it spawns and therefore become a representation of the medium as a whole? I’m not fucking answering that!
Long essay ended, no real answers were given by the above statements, all is mental masturbation on my end.
Justin & Ben: I was pointing out some lists with Vertigo and Rules of the Game as examples of how they work, not for them to compete with Kane. I will not fight the battle for 2nd and 3rd place – sigh of relief everywhere. But it still is remarkable to me how the lists all start to resemble one another after a while. I was putting Citizen Kane up against ALL challengers – not just those two, of course. Yes, there are things much worse than thinking about contenders to the title: Who is king (or Kane) of the film castle.
Justin: Sounds as if your dvd store had a few good things in it amongst the dross. I avoid most video stores like the plague, because I just get physically ill at the sight of all those awful movies out there. Those rental places where there is nothing you want to see and they got Irma la Douce in the foreign film section – and that’s it for foreign. Every shelf has the latest Hollywood blockbuster release staring at you, or a picture of some guy with a large machine-gun blazing away. Then I just go back home, turn on the TV, and lo and behold, Turner is running Citizen Kane again tonight!
I don’t really think it’s laziness, Bob. I will concede that Kane has become something of a sacred cow but critical opinion is notoriously fickle and toppling sacred cows in favor of a new ‘contendah’ is quite hip in this day and age. Ebert has pointed out how critical opinion has shifted regarding the greatest silent film star between Chaplin and Keaton every several years. In the ‘52 S&S poll, Chaplin held 2 out of the top 3 spots. By ’72, he was out of the top 10 in favor of Keaton. It’s back and forth with those two. If Chaplin, the personification of cinema for decades can be shoved from his lofty perch than nothing is untouchable. I just think that there’s no one film out there to play that Keaton role. There are some that are every bit as good but not as influential, every bit as influential but not as good, every bit as good and influential but they came later and then we’re getting into a ‘Kobe can’t be as good as Jordan because without Jordan there is no Kobe’ kind of debate.
For me Citizen Kane is such a great classic because you can study a lot of film techniques watching it – as regards to the storytelling, editing, deep focus or simply the sophisticated technical achievements (which have been listed in this thread already). That does not make it the best film ever, of course. It is still fun to make such lists, though.
For me Citizen Kane is such a great classic because you can study a lot of film techniques watching it – as regards to the storytelling, editing, deep focus or simply the sophisticated technical achievements (which have been listed in this thread already). That does not make it the best film ever, of course. It is still fun to make such lists, though.
Why does this discussion continue is my question. Why didn’t it end 20 years ago?
KANE is not the best movie ever made. (And who can say what is?)
KANE is probably not the best film Welles made. (I would plead for two others.)
But KANE is the American story, told powerfully in black and white German expressionist imagery, and told with a fine ambiguity, and it is the cinematic equivalent of Fitzgerald’s THE GREAT GATSBY. (Nobody has yet made a proper movie of that!) And you can admire it or detest it but it is what is and let’s just watch it or not watch it and then move on to more urgent things.
this film gave me nightmares. it’s filmed like a horror movie, at least the beginning
history is a factor though. thats true. IF people want to call kane the greatest of all time, it seems impossible to me that some newer movie will be able to take its place. whether now or later. surely no old film will be reconsidered and suddenly promoted to kane’s spot. whats done is done. history sets a strong precedent.
since kane came at basically near the beginning of the invention of this new art form known as cinema, is seals its reputation more in stone. you can always argue that kane did it first, so therefore, it must be the best, because nothing would have been possible without it (of course then, we should really be arguing for griffith). but more importantly, and maybe this goes back to the original point of the thread, kane has entered the status of legend. how can you argue against a legend? how can legends be dethroned? its impossible, because of the very fact that they are legends! like someone else said, it would be like arguing against shakespeare. maybe he did it the best, but, didn’t he also do it first (or close enough to first)? and isnt that one of the reasons for his untouchable status?
>>The world would be a better place if every household owned a copy of Citizen Kane. If it was mandatory viewing before you could pass your driver’s test<<
I like that idea.
Or how about: part of the economic stimulus package should have been that with your stimulus you must buy … a copy of CITIZEN KANE?
JPB: “Does theoretical debate and strong critical praise give rise to laudatory stature or does a work exist independent from the debate it spawns and therefore become a representation of the medium as a whole?” – Great question and a good analysis ot the situation. You and Bobby both bring up the point that Kane has already been canonizied. It is at the top of the heap because of the huge critical attention it has garnered. Because film criticism has NOT looked as closely at the pioneering work of D.W. Griffith, Wiene, Eisenstein, Vertov or the many other great innovatiors befores Welles and Kane – this film will be considered the FIRST to have done many innovative things. Certainly it does deserve credit for its technical accomplishments. The battle is over – Kane is the undisputed champion in the critical eye – like Shakespeare, Mozart, Picasso – etc.
It is interesting that Citizen Kane has still NOT won the hearts and minds of everyone, like, for example, films such as Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, It’s a Wonderful Life, Wizard of Oz – all of which have a huge public following. This brings up the question what do these very popular films have that Kane doesn’t??? Perhaps the public marketing for Kane still needs to be done, or maybe we do need to put Kane in every houseold as some have suggested (Ha!). If we did, just imagine, how would it be perceived by the general unsuspecting viewers who have not heard yet that Citizne Kane is now acknowledged as the best film ever? Would it ever replace or equal these other crowd pleasers in the heart and minds of everyone – not just cinephiles? Or does the fact that it is treated as a rare gem amongst the common herd of films by critics give it a ‘protected’ status that elevates it ABOVE popular appeal? In other words, were it a universally popular film, would it be thought of so highly critically? Isn’t the fact that we can point to it and its initial failure at the box office as proof of its worth to the critical community – because it was never ‘popular’? Critics never want to be championing a film that is too popular with the film viewing masses out there, because criticism is by nature an elitist activity – just like theoretical physics or deconstructionism. Any comments relative to the issue of popularity vs critical appeal? I think we are edging closer to the crux of this issue. Thanks again!
>>Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, It’s a Wonderful Life, Wizard of Oz – all of which have a huge public following. This brings up the question what do these very popular films have that Kane doesn’t???<<
In a word: mush.
As I noted earlier, KANE views its characters as dispassionately as a scientist looking at microbes. Its camera technique, its editiong, the fragmentary nature of its construction prevents the viewer from getting close to and/or sympathizing with the characters. Neither Kane nor anyone else in the film is supposed to be tragic … and if this story had received the standard Hollywood treatment, that’s precisely how Kane would have been portrayed. KANE does not fall into the cliche traps & thuis will never be a popular entertainment.
i think there’s something to the argument that kane wouldn’t be kane if it was a popular (read: less artistic) picture. i agree that critics are the ones making these lists, so therefore we need to examine them (our, ourselves), since criticism is a subjective activity.
so what’s the worth of a critic saying what the greatest picture of all-time is versus the worth of the masses saying it? if the critics say kane, but the masses say something else (by way of ticket sales, or their own popular vote), which one do we prize more? now we’re digging into some even more complex questions. do critics have the right or ability to represent popular opinion, or trump it? are critics priests, translating the authority of God so the less enlightened can understand? is criticism preaching to the choir, or worse, screaming in empty hallways? i think we’re all on the same side of the fence here on this website, so are we willing to say that our opinion is a minority one, and shouldnt be held as a cultural standard, especially at the expense of the masses thoughts?
maybe we should call citizen kane the “greatest picture of all-time for the discerning, elitist critics who prefer neglected art films to popular entertainment every time, thus, who have weighted scales to begin with”? guilty as charged. but i’m a populist critic. i say no one film can reign supreme over everything else, and to even attempt to make one do so is an exercise in futility anyway.
how ’bout some sacrilege, just for fun? what if the greatest film of all-time was “star wars”? (ok, ok. sorry. “empire strikes back”!)
Bobby: “are critics priests, translating the authority of God so the less enlightened can understand? is criticism preaching to the choir, or worse, screaming in empty hallways?” “maybe we should call citizen kane the “greatest picture of all-time for the discerning, elitist critics who prefer neglected art films to popular entertainment every time, thus, who have weighted scales to begin with”? Good one Bobby – love it!. Well, we DO all know what side of the fence we are setting on – let’s hang out with the jesuit types. Re the Lucas thing – don’t even go there!!! – unless, of course, you pick THX-1138. We could have a case, then.
Harry: Thanks for using “mush” instead of something much stronger. Let’s still try to enlighten the poor dumb so an so’s anyway by putting a Kane in every household like Roosevelt’s chicken in every pot – as you suggested. There’s a stimulus package we could all get behind!
I just realized that I think there’s a false premise in the equating of widespread critical acclaim with “hype.” Hype is a cynical, calculated method of selling mediocrity to the public; it’s un-earned by definition. Critical acclaim is usually backed up and justified with evidence of greatness. It may be a bandwagon that sweeps Kane to the top of polls, but I don’t think it should be considered hype.
Justin: Good point – maybe I should have said “critical hype” – but the term is too pejorative, alright. We have to assume the critics (collectively, that is) know what are are talking about here.
I don’t think that there is any one greatest film, as no film can really do or say all that can be done or said in the medium. Some films do things that others just can’t. And I also think that it does a film no service what so ever to set an impossible bar of expectations for any first time viewer. There is no way that Citizen Kane could live up to the title of the best film ever, although I have no problem if someone wants to rank it that high, because I do believe that it is among the 20 or so films that could vie for such a crown if it were bestowed.
Kane must be looked at in the lense of how it holds up as a story and a work of film art, and what it achieved compared to any film made the previous or following 30 years or more. Few films attempt to do as much as Kane achieved, one failure that I would point to would be Jules and Jim a film that tried so much but, for my money, and I know I may be in the minority on this, Jules and Jim does not succeed as a film. Did Orson direct better films than Kane? Perhaps. Chimes at Midnight, Othello, Macbeth, Touch of Evil, Don Quixote-one could make arguments for all of them, but Kane was the FIRST. And as such, it holds a special place, and Welle’s audacity to make a picture about the 2 or 3 most powerful media tycoons of his time is also commendable.
Best ever, maybe not, but its in the discussion. Produced, directed, starring, and co-written by a TWENTY-FIVE year old Orson Welles. None of the actors had ever appeared in the movie. More special effects than Star Wars. Deep focus photography. Non-linear storytelling. Great makeup. Great acting. Great movie.
There’s obviously no way to find a single greatest film of all time. Anyways, I re-watched Kane very recently and suprisingly found myself fairly dissapointed. I’m not saying I didn’t like it; Welles is an absolute genious, but I found it not nearly as interesting as the famously “ruined” Magnificent Ambersons, which I think is a more genuinely moving film, regardless of it’s current state. Kane, on the other hand, while immensely entertaining, is still a very good version of the old Idealist finds power and is corrupted story. I was also very put off by the very “Hollywood-ish” lighting and obvious sets, although that may be because I’ve been watching Welles’s later works more often.
Jackford, it’s interesting that you single out lighting and sets as seeming generically Hollywood, because that was something that Kane was famous for changing. With the sets, in particular, Welles insisted on having ceilings being built, not just walls, so he could shoot from underneath people, with the camera looking up. The effect is both more realistic and more exaggerated at the same time.
One of my favorite surreal edits in Kane, as a side note, has to be the close up of the screaming cockatoo, and his eye, which begins the scene where Susan Alexander leaves and Kane wrecks her room.
It is a great film that took advantage of many of the elements that make cinema unique from any other art form. It came around at just the right time to influence many later important directors. Though I do not believe that you can have one greatest movie ever made. I believe the reason why Citizen Kane tops all the polls is because many of the people who answer those polls were either strongly influenced by the film when they were younger. Or were strongly influenced by the filmmakers, critics and professors whom cited Kane as the greatest film of all time.
I’ve always considered Citizen Kane to be Orson Welles’ worst film. I’m perfectly willing to admit Kane’s greatness’s, but it really lacks the playfulness that one can see in Mr. Arkadin or F for Fake, or the raw power and the exquisite artistry of Touch of Evil.
As Raysquirrel has said: “I believe the reason why Citizen Kane tops all the polls is because many of the people who answer those polls were either strongly influenced by the film when they were younger. Or were strongly influenced by the filmmakers, critics and professors whom cited Kane as the greatest film of all time,” – and others above have mentioned, Citizen Kane is a film whose reputation is now so great, that we must concede the title to it of ‘old venerable one’ and bow down, on bended knee. We would be crazy now to knock it off its pedestal – although I have tried to get the discussion ‘real’ as to its over-all inherent worth. It will always be held as an example of a film that deserved the ‘’best picture’ nod in its own day over the winner – How Green Was My Valley. Just yesterday, our local paper had a front-page article in the entertainment section of how “sentimentality always trumps artisitc merit” at the Oscars, using Kane as the example. It will always be there first – like the l’enfant terrible who created it in the first place. It’s a film we can’t escape, even when we try to bring it ‘down’ to reality. How will the Oscars fare this year, as re ‘artistic merit’ vs sentimentality? How will Kane fare in our own auteurs poll???
Kane is the work of a young man eager to shove his ideas down the world’s throat. That’s what gives it its energy, its power. Later, whether out of disillusionment or simply calming down, Welles could be more playful, as you say Stephan, more relaxed, and also more concentrated. It may have been the worst thing for Welles to make such a big important film as his first one: there are so many times, later in his life and career, when he seemed to be “doing Kane,” falling back on his most memorable performance and not pushing himself harder. Touch of Evil was different, I think he did push himself there, as an actor too. It’s such a completely un-vain performance that that becomes a kind of aristocratic vanity in and of itself — his cultivation of sheer ugliness. There are times when I look at him as Hank Quinlan and just can’t believe my eyes.
I agree with you about the camera angles, Justin. But John Ford had already been doing these same things with sets in Stagecoach and Young Mr. Lincoln, to much more subtle effect. Anyways, I think Welles’s less exaggerated films are more interesting, Ambersons and Chimes at Midnight in particular; Chimes maybe being his greatest film. Perhaps Kane is Welles’s most important film, but it’s certainly not his best film.
David Ehrenstein
The greatest movie ever made is quite obviously Patrice Chereau’s “Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train.”