New to The Fedora
Chronicles; Justin P. Onion reviews one of his favorate classics in his
own up-beat style...
CITIZEN KANE - ANOTHER VIEW
March 15th, 2005
By Justin P. Onion
‘Fraid, so, brothers and sisters –
another review about Citizen Kane. But why? Why indeed – I have asked
myself “Why”, too. Why am I going back and looking at films I saw 20
years ago? Why am I re-reading books I read as a kid? Why am I wasting
so much time and effort on re-doing things and re-thinking things I
thought I knew? It was a tough question for me, too – but the answer is
“Because I have to.” We are older now, and although we are a little
tougher than we were, a little more wrinkled around the eyes, a little
more silent as we peek out from under the brim of the old Stetson, we
are looking at things afresh, whether we know it or not. So, lots of
things need to be dusted off and re-examined…
It’s been 15 years or more since I watched it – I was in University. I
remember at the time I was in a film studies course (I was in art
school) and we saw many films – Russian, Spanish, British; we saw
Surreal films, Expressionist films, Dadaist films – you name it. Then
comes Welles and Kane: We watched it as a class; we watched it
individually; we did comparative papers and all that stuff. We
discussed technique and editing and all manner of the nuts and bolts of
the film, but we failed to recognize what I now see as one of the most
important aspects of the film.
OK – so we compared his camera angles to Vertov and some of the
lighting techniques to Weine and Eisenstein, his chiaroscuro lighting,
we felt, owed a lot to Lang and the Expressionists; his use of
fade-ins/outs was something we discussed as being unique; his use of
flashback and his camera tricks (the long-shot special effect, keeping
foreground and background in focus) was amazing . But, for all of that,
he was “derivative” to us know-it-alls in art school. We were in
University – and we were going to change the world with original art:
angry young men; arrogant and full of that kind of piss-and-vinegar
“avant-garde-ist” disdain for anything that wasn’t cutting edge enough.
Ah, youth… so unkind, so full of itself, yes?
Well, the thing we didn’t discuss back then was the very thing that
makes Kane a great picture. Story, script, and film technique
combined! There’s the answer, I think, as to why Citizen Kane is
one of the great films of all time: the whole measuring more than the
sum of its parts; the Gestalt of Citizen Kane.
We all know the story: What makes it come alive, though (for me, at any
rate), is the dialogue. Every single word; every pause between the
words, the very sound and rhythm of the sentences, every nuance of
every syllable is, I think – and I’m not using hyperbole here for the
sake of it – brilliant. To use one example: “If I hadn’t been really
rich, I’d probably have been a great man.” The poignancy and beauty in
that line – and of course, Welles’ delivery, his acting – well, I was
almost weeping at the humanity expressed in that statement.
And Kane as a child: another example of the simplicity of the dialogue:
“Why aren’t you coming with us, mom?” The boy’s expression of fear,
uncertainty, confusion, anxiety. There is much that can be said there,
in that moment, which is, I think it’s safe to say here, what “Rosebud”
really means: it’s the childhood he never had, the family he never
knew, the life he lost and could never get back, in that snowy
landscape within the glass paperweight that falls to the floor at the
beginning of the picture. This is what Citizen Kane is about. That’s
why the story is gripping; that’s why Welles had to make this film with
so much art, with so much creativity and energy – with a view to
perfection in every sense of the word. This film is a great film
because the story is great – and important – and, I believe, this film
should be seen by everyone. The tragedy of Kane’s life is that he had
no childhood or family. It was taken from him by his own mother.
Leyland says it best: “That’s his story: How he lost [love]… and in the
end, he had none to give.”
I don’t know what else I can say here that hasn’t been said before:
There’s editing, there’s the sound (great, huh – the opening – I double
checked my volume twice – I had forgotten that it opens in silence);
there’s those incredible tracking shots; there’s the scenes of extended
dialogue – like a stage production – that seem to go on for minutes at
a time without an edit; the acting - superb: Cotton’s performance
is nothing less than brilliant, I think, a lot of which has to do with
his easy, laid back style: his voice – rich, resonant, mellifluous
- and Leyland is such a great character – Cotton knew it, and he
put everything into the role; and it’s just a pleasure to watch him on
screen.
What else? The story that drives the narrative: The newspaper wants to
find out what was behind the great man, what drove him – as do we, of
course, after watching those newsreels – and what an awesome idea that
was! People expected - and got - newsreels during the war when they
went to the movie houses. This was no different: and Welles’ use of the
Newsreel as a technique to introduce the story we are about to see lent
an eerie sense of reality to what was unfolding on the screen (a
dramatization of Hearst’s life, no less). I mean – I can go on
for days – months – as others have done and will continue to do. I
think I’ll just let them mention all the things that make this a great
film – they will do it far more eloquently, articulately, and
beautifully than I.
I wish I could express the way I feel about this film, but I can’t. All
I can say – after years of carrying around the idea that Kane was
over-rated - is that I was wrong: Welles was a genius. The film,
because of the story – and I will hold to this view for the rest of my
life – is a masterpiece: A Tragedy as powerful as Hamlet or Othello
that tells the story of how a child just coming into his own conscious
realization of childhood bliss has that happiness taken away. The scene
(Agnes Moorehead as the mother is planning what will become the boy’s
doom - and again, I must mention that beautiful long-focus shot!) where
he is playing in the snow being the happiest child that ever could be –
has a pathos that is just overwhelming.
So – I have said about all that a hopeless slob of a scribe such as
myself can say about this film. I admit I was mistaken back in the days
when I was a young lion – and I will say again what I said at the
beginning of this little indulgence - thank heavens for age and the
passing of time, otherwise I might not have looked at this film again.
I guess age kinda does that to ya, huh – as one gets older, one starts
looking at things, ironically enough, with new eyes, a newer brain.
I’ve recently begun re-reading Don Quixote for that very reason -
because I have realized I have changed. I am looking at a lot of things
over again – it’s a pleasure and a curse – but everything I have been
doing has been worthwhile. What’s next in this little cyber-spot? Hey –
tune in next week, brothers and sisters, and take a peek – hopefully it
will be worth your while, too!