TBT: Citizen Kane (1941)

Let’s send October off in style, shall we? Four Thursdays and several classics later, we arrive here at the fifth installment of TBT. And really, how can I ignore this one? It’s a film I saw a few months ago and I haven’t seen it since, so with any luck my memory will not fail me. I can finally now say that I have gotten to experience

Today’s food for thought: Citizen Kane.

Incinerating sleds since: September 5, 1941


How does one hope to reveal anything new or exciting about Citizen Kane, one of cinema’s most poured-over films and a release that’s now over 70 years old? The truth is, they can’t. The best thing that I can hope to do is nod my head and silently agree with everyone who has ever sung its praises. This is a film with such a reputation that it actually takes some effort not to watch it.

Some months ago now I pressured myself into ordering the DVD through Netflix. When it arrived it then sat on top of the Xbox for awhile before I finally decided I should just give it a chance. I carried a healthy level of skepticism going in because there was no way this film was going to be as good as everyone had told me it was. Fifteen minutes in I was completely entranced. Orson Welles’ most celebrated film, and please pardon the strange comparison, absorbs and entertains — and ultimately repulses — much in the same way as Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street, creating an almost mythical character at the heart of the story and protecting him behind layers upon layers of exposition, each one invariably tainted by bias and prejudice. Both feature characters so much larger than life it takes at least 120 cinematic minutes to properly represent them.

In hindsight, Charles Foster Kane (Welles) might be easier to sum up than you would think. The word ‘enigma’ comes to mind. Even ‘celebrity.’ That’s an incomplete picture though. And really, that’s the impression Welles (as director) wants first-time viewers to have. His approach all but beckons those same viewers to watch again, to find out what pieces of the puzzle they have missed. Citizen Kane, in the mode of a film à clef, weaves a dense and complex narrative to paint a collage of impressions about who Kane was, what he represented, and how his legacy would proceed him.

Kane, himself a collage of real-life personalities, was loosely based upon American newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, Chicago business tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick, as well as aspects of Welles’ own life. Despite his incredible wealth and influence, Kane was, for all intents and purposes, an American everyman — someone who, if you saw him on the streets, you could walk right up to and touch. And you, in all your mediocrity, would matter to him. At least, that’s how it seemed.

Among the most fervently discussed aspects of this production is its inventive narrative structure, one which spindles out like a spiderweb to incorporate virtually every aspect of this man’s life, accumulating dramatic heft until a remarkable revelation. The core of the story is concerned with developing Kane’s professional life, detailing his impoverished childhood in Colorado, his subsequent adoption by a wealthy banker named Walter Thatcher (George Coulouris), and his meteoric rise to national prominence after entering the newspaper business and seizing control of the New York Inquirer, what many today recognize as the tabloid paper The National Enquirer.

Within this framework we see Kane (d)evolve from ebullient and idealistic publisher seeking immortality via his unfathomable business savvy — save for the little hiccup in 1929 where the stock market crash resulted in his forfeiture of his controlling share of The Inquirer — to a mere mortal set on gaining as much power as a man can have — he briefly dabbled in politics before an affair effectively put an end to that venture — while essentially destroying anyone who dared cross him, and God forbid, chose to marry him. One particularly memorable sequence depicts the gradual dissolution of his first marriage to Emily Monroe Norton (Ruth Warrick), a niece of the President of the United States, by staging a series of conversations at a dinner table.

All of these developments are relayed through flashbacks, which result from the many interviews conducted by modern-day newspaper reporter Jerry Thompson (William Alland). He’s seeking the significance of Kane’s last dying words (really, it’s a single word ‘rosebud’), at the behest of his newsreel producer. Interviews include friends and associates, some of whom are willing to speak freely about the man while others (notably Susan Alexander, Kane’s second wife) initially refuse to be interviewed. Even disregarding the immensity of the character being explored, Citizen Kane established its brilliance through this kaleidoscopic approach, using other people to inform a third party’s opinion about who this man was and why his death was so significant. As people are inherently complex, it only makes sense our best chance of gaining intimate knowledge of a single person is through the perspectives of many.

Quite simply, this is an extraordinary picture that almost suffers from an abundance of potential talking points. I haven’t even delved into how ornate and beautiful its imagery is. The symbolism. The scale. The humanity and the lack thereof, particularly during scenes at his elegant Floridian estate, known as Xanadu. The use of shadows to evoke danger and tension. The sharp suits and elegant dresses suggesting power and prestige both earned and usurped. The film has been praised countless times for its groundbreaking technical aspects, and while I claim to know little about that aspect of filmmaking, to my untrained eye it’s praise well-deserved.

To the uninitiated, Citizen Kane and all of its clout might seem a bit overwhelming and even off-putting. After all, lofty expectations usually serve to disappoint. In my case, I don’t think there was a way to prepare myself for how good this was. The film ends in an estate sale, wherein Kane’s bevy of personal possessions — most of them statues and busts and expensive paintings — are being divided up either for selling or discarding. It’s telling that this cavernous enclave is mostly filled with priceless items that, collectively, mean very little. They probably meant very little to Kane himself. The accumulation of wealth is so ridiculous it consumes the entirety of the frame. In fact, the only thing more consuming than his apparent obsession with gaining more and more stuff is that nagging sensation that we’ve missed the significance of the word ‘rosebud.’

Recommendation: Unforgettable. And quite simply a classic. Orson Welles truly outdoes himself in the lead and as a director, and if you are yet to see this film I urge you to put some time aside and give it a shot. I personally had grown tired of hearing how good a movie Citizen Kane was, but that was before I actually got around to watching it. Between the visual aesthetic and the scope and ambition of its content, this may not be the ‘best movie I’ve ever seen,’ but for all its comprehensiveness and elegant craftsmanship, it’s likely to remain in a fairly elite group for years to come.

Rated: PG

Running Time: 119 mins.

TBTrivia: The audience that watches Kane make his speech is, in fact, a still photo. To give the illusion of movement, hundreds of holes were pricked in with a pin, and lights moved about behind it.

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.allposters.com; http://www.imdb.com 

25 thoughts on “TBT: Citizen Kane (1941)

  1. Most of the films you’ve been reviewing lately are unknown to me, but obviously I’ve seen this one. Not the greatest film ever made as its reputation suggests. Not even close in my opinion, but definitely an impressive film . This was a great chocie for your throwback films segment. 🙂


    • Thanks man. It’s something I was curious about for a long time. It kind of falls into that nebulous category of ‘films you must see if you want to call yourself a serious movie blogger.’ Lol. Whatever that means.

      I greatly enjoyed it but yeah I think it’s reputation is slightly overblown. If I were more knowledgeable about technical film aspects perhaps it might have blown me away. All I know is that it looks very good, sounds very good and is well put-together. 🙂


  2. It has to be eight slices doesn’t it? I was fortunate to watch this on the big screen a few years back and everything I had loved about it was amplified. There’s a reason this has stood the test of time.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, yes it does. 🙂 I am so jealous you saw this on a big screen. I would have loved that. Though on the strength of Welles alone he makes this movie seem larger than life even on a laptop. Such a fantastic movie and i’m glad I was able to finally catch it. Netflix saves the day again.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Nice review Tom. I really do think this is the greatest movie of all-time; it isn’t my favorite film (though it’s certainly close), but I can’t think of a better made picture than Kane.

    I’d recommend checking out some of Orson Welles’ other work too, particularly The Magnificent Ambersons. It’s a great film to watch side by side with Kane.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ok, excellent man. I’ll be putting Magnificent on my list for sure. Kane is epic. It’s really inventive storytelling had me hooked quite early on. Then there was the tremendous performance from Orson Welles himself. I’m so inexperienced when it comes to his stuff, I look forward to getting more familiar with him.


    • . . .I believe it was a 360 actually. It was my roommate’s system and not mine. I don’t have one, unfortunately. Yes, I am lame. 😉

      Get on Citizen Kane btw. Fantastic stuff. Tad overrated but still great.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Very good write up sir! I would be apprehensive about writing about Kane for the same reasons you mention – it has all been said before – but I think you did a good job and have given me the impetus to re-watch it. I first saw it about 20 years ago during a class in which we were told just what made it was so good, but to be honest I haven’t seen it in ages and have forgotten most of the details, so I could definitely sit through it again.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Well that’s great news man! I figured this review would be pure re-hash for more experienced/more cultured readers. Haha!

      I am so glad I got to see this, it really is a mesmerizing blend of cinematography, directing, acting and . . well, almost everything else. Such a great film and has well-earned its place amongst cinema’s greats. I’d love to watch it again sometime soon


      • More experienced/more cultured readers? Haha…I’m going to have to start swearing more when I drop by here and I’ll have to start professing my love for Jennifer Lopez movies!
        Great to see a movie and think that, isn’t it? I reckon there’s only ever two, maybe three movies a year where I watch it and think “I could sit back down and watch that again straight away”.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Glad you got to cross this one off the list! It’s really amazing to watch. I particularly love how it uses lighting and shadows like no other film I can think of.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Nah I wouldn’t say pathetic. I only saw it this year! 70+ years later! Hahah! Hope you check it out sometime man, this does fall into that category of films that can be quite overhyped but as far as my experience is concerned, I had to love it. It was a very engaging story. and a beautiful looking movie to boot. Plus I don’t think I’ve seen more than 3 or 4 movies that were released before 1950.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.