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!




Questions or Comments, you can respond by writing to renderking@thefedorachronicles.com

Return To The Main Page