Many of you know I have only recently "discovered" film. I really had and have a very limited movie knowledge. Trying to make up for lost time in order to learn.

This film is commonly called the best of all time. But I had never seen it. Found it online today, so I decided to give it a shot.

I'm not going to review it or analyze it much. Every film student has studied it and most of you guys already know it inside out.

The first 15 or 20 minutes of the film, my reaction was negative. Yeah, there seemed to be some intriguing camera stuff, but it seemed a strange way to do a story, with the phony news reals, the death of the protag at the outset, and the complete lack of any other characters. I mean literally, as they are generally in shadow. So 20 minutes into the movie, one doesn't have a sense of a single character.

But then...wow. Somewhere around the 30 minute mark, the film really hit me. A short while after young Kane has bought the newspaper, and has turned it into the top paper in the city, he is celebrating with his staff. And this is where it hits you how isolated this man is. He is surrounded by people bought and paid for.

And since we know the isolation and loneliness of his demise, we know that this is just the first glimpse of the man's lifelong quest for not only meaning, but real human connection. Because we know the quest fails, it casts a powerful gloom over the story.

But why do we watch? I think because we want to see if there were turns on the road he took where things could have turned out different for him. And we wonder about the crossroads in our own lives.

The film has a weird nightmare quality to it, like when our dreams are patched together in menacing bits of memory, and we are just an observer. It's one of the darkest movies I've ever seen, where a man who is not a bad man, but is essentially empty and isolated in a cold world and trying to fill that void with something.

Glad I did not give up on the film. Very powerful. And it's a power that sneaks up on you.

Thanks for that Kevin.

Like yourself, well until today for you , I haven't seen it either. On my "must do" list.

I did read the mckendrick book "on film making" and in that there is a interesting description of how Wells filmed a scene, maybe the last one, from the POV of the person in bed., rather the people entering POV. Not that I ever intend to be a film maker, it was at least interesting in the choices he made compared to how it would normally be shot.

I am probably the last person to comment on why this is the best film, but enviably it must always be difficult comparing a film that broke the mould, set new standards etc with those that followed, which one hopes, improve upon the ideas it illustrated. As such, the question of which is the best film, almost needs to be judged according to the era it was filmed.

I'll look out for it.

Love Orson Welles, both as an actor and a director, and love Citizen Kane. It's been a while since I saw it, but I didn't have any problem with the beginning. Welles was 26 when he made CK and I think he was amazing.

Pia, that's been my experience, that sometimes a films disappoints. And that seemed to be the case with Citizen Kane, but I stuck with it, and to my surprise, what I found was that the film truly is powerful. It leaves a mark on you. That's the best way I can describe it with my amateur film vocab. Check it out, and watch at least half.

To find the film: search on Bing. It's on a Chinese site, tudou or something. There are Chinese subtitles, but the rest is untampered with.

According to spell check, untampered is not a word. It should be!

Always thought "What Makes Samny Run" is a natural bedfellow to this film. If you've read the book, the conclusion is suitably haunting - just like Kane is described here.

Apparently Spielberg hates it, but I think the book would make a fabulous film if faithful and directed with the right tone. PTA would be a great fit for it.

Here's this, film buffs, tell me if I'm crazy.

Around minute 61 in the film, Kane gives a speech before a large crowd in an auditorium. He's running for governor on a liberal(his word) platform of helping the poor.

The auditorium is majestic, dark, a huge portrait of Kain behind him as he speaks. The curtains look like spotlights, the kind that search for bombers. And knowing where they were going with the film, I suspected they wanted this to remind of Hitler.

So paused the picture and looked. And there it is! The swastika. Cleverly hidden, but front and center. There is a table behind Kane, who is at a podium. The table and the podium very clearly make a half a swastika! I seriously doubt this was by accident. Why place a table behind the podium?

Maybe one of the resident film experts here can confirm this for me. Nothing came up under Google.

Couldn't find anything about the swastika, Kevin.

The thing to remember about Citizen Kane is that it is even a greater movie when looked at in terms of film history.   Without it, we might not be telling stories on film the same way we do now.    It pretty much ushered in our modern storytelling techniques with it's innovations on flashbacks and narrative flow.    

Here's an image. I am confident it's not an accident. And this has nothing to do with politics.

I believe Orson's point is that though Kane is running on a noble platform, his heart has gone cold, and he is trying to acquire a following just like he acquires everything else, such as wealth, power, friends, statues.

Never finding love or human connection, he is empty inside, and in his hands, political power would be a dangerous thing. In the name of helping people, he will seek to control them, like he does everyone in his life.

I took a look at that scene, and IMO I didn't see the swastika.  But who knows, I certainly wouldn't put it past Welles, comparing Hearst to Hitler.

This film pretty much wrote the book in terms of modern non-linear storytelling and various innovative camera techniques.  Some of the deep-focus work is pretty astounding, even now.

I haven't seen the whole movie since college, but its power and impact stays with you long after you watch it.

I've never seen this film. I searched my netflix and couldn't find it. I always thought China Town was the cat's ass when it comes to writing a film???

I will seek this out.

James

Quoted from jwent6688 I've never seen this film. I searched my netflix and couldn't find it. I always thought China Town was the cat's ass when it comes to writing a film??? I will seek this out. James

Citizen Kane is usually ranked numero uno when it comes to most lists of the greatest films of all time.  And the fact that Orson Welles was 25 years old and it was his first film makes it all the more incredible.

Chinatown, of course, is epic writing.  I think that script is cited more by screenwriters  not only because it's much more recent than a flick like Citizen Kane, but because Towne's style of writing innovated techniques that are still emulated.  A friend of mine actually has a signed copy of one of the producer's shooting scripts and it's fascinating to see how Towne bent and broke screenwriting rules and invented some new ones.

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/sXRHXO63agM/

There's another little scene that I found interesting, around 2/3 through. He's just lost the election, and is walking around campaign HQ alone. Lleland, his life long associate, who he considers a friend, but who has always judged Kane harshly, shows up drunk. Gives him a piece of his mind. He accuses Kane of being selfish, of not really caring about the people he was running for office to help, but instead wanting them to be dependent on him.

Kane absorbs this without much effect. Then Lleland asks to be transferred to Chicago to be away from Kane. Kane refuses, says they need him.

Lleland starts to say he will resign, and sensing this, Kane OK's the move. Despite where the film is driving us in terms of Kane, he does have some humanity left. He does not want to lose his "friend", and even though he expects he can control everything, he relents.

Then he pours himself a drink, asks Lleland to have a drink with him, to get drunk together. Lleland refuses, says he's out on the first train.

At that moment, you really feel Kane's pain. You see it on his face. He doesn't know how to connect with people and form real friendships, or marriages, so he tries to do what he knows: possess them. But it's not hopeless. He still tries. But Lleland rejects him, and it felt to me like a mini turning point. A person Kane had known all his life closing the door and refusing to even have a drink with him. Hard for the humanity left in Kane to survive these blows.

I found that tiny scene powerful.

I haven't seen the film since college, either.  Funny, because when I recently moved, I came across a bunch of my college things and one of those was a report on the movie.

The report was titled:

Citizen Kane:  A True Classic

Based on my report, I liked it and understood why it was said to be one of the very best of all time.  If I watched it now, I doubt I would still feel that way.  Who knows...I don't plan on seeing it again.

BTW, I do not see any swastikas in that shot, Kev, nor do I remember any historians ever bringing something like that up.

Interesting...

It's more like a twisted swastika. The whole film sequence evokes the rise of a dictator. That's not the focus of the film, so he didn't want to go overboard.

Jeff, you studied film in school? The plot thickens. Plenty of talent to look at it in the class? Maybe that's where and how it all began?

Communications major, English minor.

Plenty of talent all over BGSU!  Damn...those were the days.

I was cracking myself up the other night when I thought back to those college days.  I remember going to a class 1 day, with nothing on except a short pair of shorts - like Stevie still wears today.  Barefoot, shirtless, and baked out of my gourd...what a great student I was...   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yeah - I don't see the swastika - sometimes people see what they want to see.

I think CK's a complex film - and what appeals about it is that what it talks about is still relevant today - it is a very human story -- CFK doesn't just get rejected by people - he continually rejects people in his pursuit of power, and there are consequences if you are going to do thing like that.

The 'Rosebud' reference (beginning and the end), is the only time he was ever happy.

I get your reference for the Nazi's but then Hitler is playing out the Faustian process, so why refer to Hitler, when you can go direct to source? The Faustian reference, I believe, is further emphasized by the fact that the sledge is burned - that's got to be a reference, there?

And I do think that OW is saying that it's all Hitler-esque, but there's a bunch of Hitlers out there in prominent positions, but Hearst is as good an example as anyone, and at the time he was relevant - but you could choose anyone at any time - look at Murdoch today, involving the police and papers in corruption, selling phone-calls of the parents of dead children -- the pursuit of power often result in the complete loss of a moral compass. True then; true today.

Hearst was no doubt an inspiration, but it is not a biography of Hearst. Kane is his own character.

The Faustian images are there, no doubt with many others. The political part of the story is very brief. It's just one part.

There is the image of the fireplace with the demon looming near them. The smoke at the end. All kinds of images.

Hey Kev!

I disagree entirely  ;D

It is allegorical.

In Hearst's life is everything that you need to know about Hitler's inspiration.

And, I believe, we can trace this back to Aristotle's dramatic structure, on the one hand, and his theory of Ethics on the other. CFK fails on both Aristotle's Ethics and Politics -- and really how can you split the two?

It is a biography on Hearst, as much as it is a biography on Hitler. It's, to my mind, about what unites the two, and by this I don't mean historically, I mean in the furture as well -- in times to come will anyone follow a route that will mirror both Hearst and Hitler? Is this bound to happen given the human frailties that OW is referring to? Yes, I think it will -- in as much it is a biography of wickedness and where its root lie, and how it develops and manifests itself.

You will see Hearsts, Hitlers, Murdochs in every age, and that moral vacuum was referred to as long ago as Aristotle's time, and that is why it is a story for all ages.

I'm not sure I follow how you disagree, Simon. I'm not even really clear on what you are saying.

Hearst inspired Hitler?

I don't see how this is a biography on Hitler, either.

It is not a biography of anyone. Because of the wealthy newspaper magnate angle, it's inspired by Hearst, but I read up a little, and OW said there are other sources of inspiration. Kane is a fictional character.

I think we can think of examples of that in our own writing, where we create a character that is initially inspired by a real person, but ultimately it is an independent character with its own motives and history.

I'm not to comfortable with comparing Hearst or Murdoch to Hitler. The concentration of power has some similarity, but political power is hard to compare to media power, or wealth.

Also, I don't believe the story is at all about wickedness. Not even close. Kane is not wicked. He might be cold inside, empty, or controlling, but not wicked. He treats his staff well, even generally treats his family and friends well. He just does so in a way which defies real human connection. Which he longs for in a primitive, undeveloped way. He just had no idea how.

Which to me, and this is just my amateur thought, is the other point of rosebud. The main thing is it shows us his longing for his childhood, the one pure time in his life when human connections were real. But to me, there was something else. When they sent Kane away as a boy with the banker, he was deprived of normal human relationships, raised by a banker. So his personality, from an emotional standpoint, is frozen at that boy level, when all you are aware of is your own wants. It's like a kid in the store demanding his parent buys him something. Every kid is like that. Kane freezes at this emotional level. He never goes through normal emotional growth.

His growth is also stunted by his wealth. From the moment he leaves home, every single person in his life is there because of the money. There is not one relationship he can learn give and take. He longs for bonding, but never learns how to do it. All he learns is to acquire things, which is not the same. Again, check out the scene when Lleland asks to be transferred to Chicago. After agreeing, Kane tries to drink with him, but Lleland refuses. The pain is all over Kane's face. No matter what he does, no one connects with him.

The movie is effective and dark because he wants these human connections, but just has no idea. All he understands is acquiring. Like a little boy.

Well, my crazy notion anyway.

Okay. Maybe we just have different takes on it - you're looking at a lot of personal detail (life is in the detail) - I'm kind of looking at the wider picture - which I do think is being told. I'm tempted to watch it again now - I might see it in a different way.

Great film and an interesting appraisal of the film.

You're very correct about his stalled development. There's the great scene where he's playing with the sled in the background and other people are deciding his future inside.

The step father figure knows that what they are doing to him isn't right, but he has neither the power nor the intelligence to really stand up to the others.

At its heart I always took it as an exploration of what makes a man...is it what others say, or what's in his heart? Everyone has a different idea of him...he's a socialist to some and a fascist to others. In the end we get to see that he's still the little boy who just wanted to be loved and play. This is what the first part of the film is instructing us...it's showing all the different public faces of the man, instructing us to piece him together like the jigsaws his wife keeps doing, and showing us that this man is a puzzle, just like everyone else.

THe jigsaw struck me as such a cool potential metaphor, though to be honest, I didn't know what it stood for. I've never taken a film class, so I make some uncommon and mistaken inferences it seems.

All I could think of while watching was how she was obsessed with putting together the broken pieces of her life, but couldn't.

His political philosophy I don't think was too important. It was his motive that counted, and making him a liberal politically served to highlight his empty motive through contrast. He campaigns for the little guy, the working stiff, the downtrodden. But he could care less about them. He is trying to buy their love, just like he does everyone in his life(and the film wants us to draw that lesson, too).

Not only will he buy their love, but he will then own them. Just like the employees he bought from a rival paper. And he will control them. That's what he does with Susan. And the more she resents his control, the greater the distance grows between them.

He is not a fascist. But he is a would-be dictator, and the images of Nazi Germany are always powerful in evoking this, but certainly in 1941. I could be wrong, but the hall where he gives the speech seemed to evoke Hitler with the grandiosity and the gestures. There are references in dialogue before that there will be no stopping him.

Regarding the step father,  he caves in as soon as he finds out the money they will be getting to live on. So he knows, but is essentially a selfish man, perhaps contributing to the shaping of the son. The father is selfish, while the mother is not, but is utterly cold. Not surprising that someone born of this might be emotionally stunted.

Then two other factors doom him. First, as said, he's raised by a banker, business people paid to mind him. But then even beyond that, because he's rich, he can never trust any friendship, and no human connection develops normally.

There are fundamental questions sparked here that anyone can ask. The people one helps, are you buying their love? Or do you really care? It's a fair question, and nothing wrong with asking it.

Rick, I always respect your opinion on film. What classics to you suggest? I have a lot to learn. What are your favorites?

I know you asked Rick but I couldn't resist.

Clockwork Orange, Sunset Blvd.  and, of course, Casablanca  or any 50s - early 60s Hitchcock.

I don't know if you like foreign films or not but if you want to see film as art then Felini's Roma is excellent (though Casanova is more accessible).   You might like something by Godard as well Breathless or Truffaut The 400 Blows  or my favourite Resnais Hiroshima, mon amour.   There is also Bergman The Seventh Seal

If you want to see a movie about a Nazi's then see Seven Beauties, The Night Porter or even Life is Beautiful.

If you were looking for historical films then that is a slightly different list and what would head that list would be Battleship Potemkin by Sergei Eisenstein which virtually created much of our modern film language - including the montage.

I'm going to pile on despite not having been asked either.  

I think All Quiet on the Western Front is one of the "perfect" films of all time.

For me, it's always a toss-up for funniest movie of all time between Duck Soup and Modern Times.  Both are excellent films apart from being very funny -- Modern Times in particular, of course.

Leave Her to Heaven is one of the great noir thrillers of all time (and in colour, no less!).  

Wilder's The Lost Weekend is probably the greatest Hollywood film about alcoholism, even if it doesn't have Nicolas Cage.

And I don't know if this is quite old enough to be in that 'classic' category, but Michael's got one from 1971, so I'll say 1972's Sleuth, last film as director for the great Joseph L. Mankiewicz, is one of the best movies ever made.

Thanks, guys. Some of these I've seen, but before I was writing screenplays, so before I was trying to learn anything from them.

Most of them I've never heard of.

Clockwork actually really disappointed me. Cassablanca I liked.

I'll see if any are on Netflix. And then some of them can be found on Youtube or Chinese sites.

I watched one in Chinese the other night. I had seen it before and just wanted to record the beats, but it was dubbed all in Chinese. No, I don't speak it.

The classics… Along with Citizen Kane, I’d say Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Singing In The Rain, Casablanca, Ben Hur, Sunset Boulevard, the Hitchcock quad of North By Northwest, Rear Window, Psycho, and Vertigo. For the comedies, The Apartment, Some Like it Hot, and It Happened One Night.

Looking over my own list I guess it could be said these are too obvious, and are easy choices. But the reason they are easy choices is because they are great movies.

Quoted from Michael what would head that list would be Battleship Potemkin by Sergei Eisenstein which virtually created much of our modern film language - including the montage.

Come on, Michael, we're all movie buffs here.  Don't try and name something obscure when we all know 'Rocky' had the first montage.

Maybe because it's sentimental to me and I like to put a lot of emphasis on performances and dialogue, but 'Meet John Doe' was always one of my favorites.  I know Frank Capra may be a by the book, formulaic director, but I like how his movies explore the dark 'inner' person in everybody, even when we're considered heroes.  Even goofy heroes.

Quoted from rc1107 Come on, Michael, we're all movie buffs here.  Don't try and name something obscure when we all know 'Rocky' had the first montage.

BP is not obscure at all.  It's in every film history book there is and is required viewing for any film student.    You can even find the entire movie on You Tube - so there's no excuse.