Is Citizen Kane Overrated?

Tweet

There are certain films that are deemed so sacred that it's not generally considered socially acceptable to criticise them.  If any film leads the pack in this regard, it has to be the 1941 Orson Welles vehicle, Citizen Kane.

It has topped critic's lists for decades, perhaps most notably on both the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies and BFI's Sight & Sound poll.  The former still places Citizen Kane at the #1 spot, whilst the latter has only finally demoted it to second place after 50 years at the top (falling victim to Vertigo)

The problem with such lists is that it's very easy for such films to become "grandfathered in".  Any film that's been around as long as Kane and held in such high esteem gets automatic consideration, and there is such a stigma attached to making a negative comment about what is seen as an historically important film that few professional critics seem prepared to accept the inevitable ostracisation that would occur if they did not vote for it.

The movie-going public has no such qualms though, so it's interesting to note it's placing on lists which are largely governed by public opinion.  One good example is Empire Magazine's Top 500, which as well as 150 leading Hollywood figures and 50 professional critics also takes the votes of 10,000 of it's readers.  Kane only makes No.28 on the list, with The Godfather much more deservedly taking the No.1 position.  And for anyone who might fear that the top spots will just be a popularity contest of recent blockbusters, that myth is blown out of the water by virtue of the fact that many great oldies such as Casablanca, The Third Man, and even Some Like It Hot all rank higher than Citizen Kane.

Similar results are seen in the IMDb Top 250, in which Kane is currently sitting at No.45.  There has been much criticism of this list, since anyone can vote, and there have been accusations of large scale manipulation to push new films towards the top.  I won't deny that can happen, but I've been following this particular list for around 15 or more years now, and have observed that any such manipulation tends to be shortlived, always allowing the true cream of the crop to rise to the top in the long term.

So, what about Citizen Kane then?  Are the critics right, and do the general public just not know what's good for them?  Or are the critics just following tradition, too fearful to appear to be the odd one out by speaking against it?

My layman's opinion is that it is a good film.  It is historically important also.  But, no it is not a great film.  And it's most definitely not the best film ever made.  Not by quite a sizable margin.  I want to keep this blog post as brief as possible, so will just quickly highlight a couple of reasons, but may if I find the time, write a longer article at some point to elaborate more fully.

It is too dependent upon a single gimmick

The main appeal of the film is it's search to discover the meaning of the dying words of a great man.  As his last breath escapes his lips, so does the word 'Rosebud...'.  The film spends just shy of two hours in the quest to uncover what Rosebud is.  Given the importance often attached to the final words of so many historical figures, there is the automatic assumption that for someone seen to have lived such a great life, that his final words must carry some sense of the profound.  Or at least some poignancy.

There are two problems here, only one of which can we really blame on Welles.  Firstly, the aforementioned 'twist' has been so widely known for so long that for most people who have watched it in recent years (or even recent decades), they will probably already know the end from the start.  Certainly, I have known for many years that Rosebud was the name of Kane's childhood sled.  Once you know that, the rest of the film is rather disappointingly dull.  Anyone who has ever seen a film by M.Night Shyamalan knows that relying upon a single twist as the most important part of the film does not make a good movie, let alone a great one.

Secondly, the twist is not even a good one.  Rosebud is his sled?  Who cares.  It's supposed to appear profound, but instead is just pretentious.  The film is trying to make the point that despite all of his achievements and wealth, he cared more about a childhood toy and the innocence it represents.  I like the message, I just don't like the method.  Welles seems incapable of using subtlety to make a point, instead using narration to bludgeon us with it.  Nowadays, if we want to know the director's thoughts, we can just turn on the director's commentary that often comes bundled as a DVD extra.  Here we're not given the option of interpreting any meaning on our own, thanks to a painfully unnatural soliloquy which sums everything up for us.

Historical importance is not the same thing as entertainment

I understand that the film was breaking new ground back in 1941.  The nonlinear narrative told through flashbacks was new.  And yes, I know that it used deep-focus shots, low-angle shots and close-ups, as well as many technical special effects, and even advances in the use of makeup to transform Welles into a younger version of himself to play the title role.  All great technical innovations, which have clearly had huge influence on thousands of films made since then.  That's fine and to be respected.  By all means, make it mandatory viewing for film students, to assist in understanding the origins of these techniques.

But none of these things are what imbues a film with greatness.  There is only one thing that is capable of doing this - the story.  And sadly, Citizen Kane is a rather simple story to begin with, but is made worse by bad pacing and weak acting on the part of almost all the supporting actors.  The closing credits even have the bizarre disclaimer that ""Most of the principal actors are new to motion pictures" as if it were felt that some kind of apology were required, which perhaps was true.

The Thief of Baghdad, in 1940, was the first film to ever use green screen technology.  Similarly, the first ever 3D film was The Power of Love, surprisingly made in 1922, three decades before the birth of 3D cinema is often credited.  But neither are hailed as the greatest film of all time, on the basis that they pioneered new film-making techniques.

Despite what some critics would try to convince you of, good film-making is not the same thing as good cinematography.  Sure, a very poorly constructed film can detract from an otherwise good film.  But above anything else, a film must be about the story - it should entertain, inspire, or inform it's viewers.

Citizen Kane does have at it's heart a potentially interesting story, sufficient to make it a good film, and should be watched just once by everyone interested in film.  But with it's slow pacing and sometimes amateurish supporting actors, it is sadly just a little too tedious to really be considered a great film.