Orson Welles - actor, director, screenwriter, producer - his debut film "Citizen Kane", which is recognized as the best film of all time - presented at the age of 25. This film is considered by many to be a handbook for directing.
Art education helped Wells to create highly artistic shots, a special pleasure to see the beauty in the shots of Wells in color cinema. Just animated pictures! But first of all in this film I was interested in the choreography inside the frame, the mise-en-scene, namely – not just a beautiful picture – although Wells certainly builds the frame and as an artist including. I was interested in how much the movement of actors can be metaphorical and how the mise-en-scene works for the viewer on a subconscious level.
All actors move like chess pieces – changing the power of their influence from a small pawn – visually represented by a physically small object, to the Queen and even the King – increasing in the frame to immense sizes. Light also plays a very important role in the development of dramaturgy. Surprisingly dramatic, Wells lines up the lighting. Heroes then getting into the backlight become as small as possible, then returning to the light go on the attack, become one position in the conflict. They are allies, and at this time in the background in the counter-light still stands the hero, clearly losing his position, and then one step again gets into the light, becoming a giant figure and concluding – no, I can not do this!
It should be noted that in other films (in particular, “Lady from Shanghai” and “The Immortal Story”) Wells continues to use the technique – when the light works not on the speaker, but on the person receiving information from the speaker.
Also, the technique that Wells used for the first time in Citizen Kane - when the ball breaks at the beginning of the film and we see the appearance of a maid through a broken ball - in "Lady from Shanghai" is developed at a time when the hero of the film is in a state of shock. At the same moment, as a sequel, there is an episode with mirrors, with a huge number of reflections in them. It was also the first time that Wells used this technique in Kane.
Also interesting is the reception of the lowest position of the camera in Citizen Kane - there is always a ceiling in the frame. Since filming usually took place in pavilions, Wells insisted on building ceilings. By the way, there is practically no interior in the frame, since often it is completely covered by overhanging or towering figures of characters.
In general, the handwriting of Wells is strongly captured, for example, in how the scene ends - when the camera maximally lingers on the final reaction of the hero. I must say that as a rule, there is playfulness in it. And in general, critics and other directors noted that the actors in Wells' films are not so flawless. But in any case, these final frames of the episode in my opinion read Wells.
But in general, the most interesting thing about Citizen Kane for me is the mise-staging, the movement within the frame, and how the character's position in the episode changes dramatically and how it is expressed by Orson Welles through visual narrative.
About the film “Citizen Kane” I heard more than once as the best film shot at the dawn of Hollywood in 1941.
The beginning of the film was interesting, because what is the so-called “pink bud”? Favorite woman? Some book? But what is it? It can be anything in Kane's world. The film tried to be in the genre of detective, but in fact was only filled with a biography of a man who lived a rich life, who lost himself among the popularity and rich junk that was burned after his death.
I watched the film for about a week because it was the most boring story I could imagine. About the first 15 minutes of the film were interesting, but the subsequent storytelling of the film for me slid into a “chase” for the Pink Bud and the story of a man of his time.
I wouldn’t recommend watching this movie because not all high-rated movies are really the ones to watch. The film was depressing and boring.
You can not love and do not understand the cult works of art, but to deny their cultism will not work in any case. Their lawyer is time itself. “Citizen Kane”, filmed in 1941 by Orson Welles in collaboration with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz is a perfect example of this.
A characteristic feature of the director is the theme itself, the morality revealed throughout the film. Especially in his later works, Wells expressed his extremely personal, open and noble vision of the world, but elements of this originated in Citizen Kane.
This picture is the story of the life of newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane. Living flashbacks of the characters, the viewer sees the path of Kane from the boy left alone with his life to the first, successful media mogul, who practically created the phenomenon of “yellow newspapers”. It should be mentioned that the main inspiration for the creation of the character was the personality of American businessman William Randolph Hearst, who did not like allegories on his own path and who made a lot of efforts to prevent the young director from publishing the story of his personal life. At first it came out, the film crashed at the box office, but after repeated screenings “Citizen” found its viewer.
The film is remarkable for its form of storytelling. Like the great novels A Hero of Our Time and The Great Gatsby, we are faced with an unreliable narrator. We hear about Citizen Kane from different people, gathering information bit by bit until we put everything together in a single picture that we only understand. It is impossible to say which part of the biography is more important and remarkable, but a particularly strong symbol is generally considered to be the last words of the dying tycoon: “pink bud”. Viewers had many theories about what this line might mean, but they agreed on the simplest answer. It's the name of Kane's old sleigh company. A small detail, but after many minutes of watching the purposeful, unhealthyly ambitious Kane gain wealth but lose his friends, his life and himself, we realize that all these aspirations, struggles and passions were imaginary and worthless. At the end of his life, only the memory of his childhood remained on his lips.
The painting became a cinematic idol. The modern viewer may be disappointed in the not the most interesting film language, may underestimate the faint psychological component, and simply may not tolerate the uneven pace of the progression of the work. In order not to stumble on this stone, you must first understand the historical context and start watching the film with the dedication and respect that it undoubtedly deserves.
What is everyone looking at so narrowly?
The film perfectly shows that great companies do not make money and people – the collective.
Friends are the best exactly until the moment when views converge - after even enemies can become.
If women do not always love and show the same thing everywhere, you have not loved much. Whether you are a tycoon or a janitor, if a person does not love and he has passed chemical love, then excuses and claims begin. Love would not destroy him in this way and even shift the responsibility to him.
Rosebud is something that matters to you, but no one sees it or knows it, and you end up dying and your entire legacy is burned in a furnace or sold by beloved heirs.
Therefore, it is pointless to write reviews if you are under 30 years old about such films (unless you have read the classics of world literature all over). You'll understand. Who wrote a negative review at 50.
Surprisingly, even now, more than 80 years after its release, the film still looks interesting. The plot is quite unusual, for the time of release so accurately, and of course, it should be noted that the picture has become a cult and brought a lot to the cinema. No wonder it is in many lists of the best films of the 20th century.
Perhaps not all the effects and techniques were invented here, but it was Orson Welles' debut that became a major film that used them and brought them to perfection, well, as far as 1940 allowed. Studio RKO signed a contract with the young director, this marked the beginning of the author's film (the studio should not interfere with him, the directing and final editing remained with Wells). The picture was one of the first, which told the full life of a person (usually took only 5-10 years), also here for the first time shown nonlinear chronology, because the film begins with the death of Kane and only further show his life.
The beginning of the film, briefly telling the life of Kane - a rather popular now pseudo-documentary movie (the so-called mocumentary), from the latest examples of Aaron Sorkin's "Being Ricardo" or the series "The Office". Just after the viewer learns with what fortune and merit Kane died, the story of his life from childhood looks different, it is easy to notice that he lost much more than he gained. He was the most famous man of his time, watched, believed and followed, but he died surrounded by servants. Most importantly, Wells just brilliantly puts many years in a few minutes. Determined to show that a long marriage has cracked, he edits a literally two-minute scene with monotonous breakfasts of Charles Foster Kane and his wife, which gradually become tense, and the space between them at the table increases. Now this technique is used in many films, to recall even the opening scene of the cartoon “Up”, where in a couple of minutes laid the whole life of the main character.
The effect of an unreliable narrator is also used. A journalist trying to find out what Rosebud means meets several people associated with Kane, and the viewer sees several passages from his path, which ultimately add up to a whole picture of life. Each character presents his version of events, but there is absolutely no guarantee that this or that interpretation corresponds to the truth. In some ways, their opinions converge, in some ways they are opposite to each other, so the viewer has to draw conclusions on what to believe.
As a result, it turned out quite an interesting film that influenced the cinema, and its status only confirms the successfully passed test of time.
8.5 out of 10
The film ' Citizen Kane' indeed, a fundamental study of the type, part, of which genes are in each of us. The film is about a man who at first began to do everything across the world, absolutely disregarding people and society, in spite of him, in his name and in conflict with everyone, and strictly according to his invented rules, in accordance with his invented world (it looks like me very much), then everything became even worse, he decided to teach the world, to convince people, it turned out that he owns the opinion of this world and controls his will and views, and can impose any values on him, and finally, in the end, he thinks that he controls love, he can force, and force his soul to destroy the world, as if I don’t win anything in the finale, I don’t fight for myself.
In general, this is the story of a powerful man who wanted to subordinate to his will and whim the surrounding world, love, poetry, and who failed tragically. Except for violence. The film of 1941, in Europe, the apotheosis of Kane's twin Hitler, with whom the film even has a joint shot, but Hitler is still politics, and Kane psychology and in fact - a dangerous delusion of a strong-willed and talented person, a lost personality and the drama of life, in which once something went wrong and which quarreled with life and with itself, and this movie after watching makes you ask yourself such questions that becomes scary.
Many people who are interested in cinema or want to plunge into the old classic Hollywood, sooner or later come to this film. Praise reviews of critics around the world and beckon to quickly get acquainted with what put on the first place for the entire existence of the film industry. But I am afraid of a lot of disappointment.
Perhaps connoisseurs of cinema or its avid fans, as well as connoisseurs of the specific narrative that is observed in the film and will be able to truly enjoy this work. But people who decided to simply provide themselves with leisure for the evening, this film is unlikely to find interesting for themselves.
This movie is included in the list of those that you need to watch carefully, dig into the details, try to find what the director wants to say. Having watched this film twice, I only caught its main essence, but I could not find anything to make me call this film the greatest. The characters do not seem memorable to me, the main drama does not touch, and the course of the narrative lulls me with its monotony and does not capture my attention. Nevertheless, the camera work deserves praise: the picture of the film is pleasant. And the realization that a huge layer of work was done by almost one person - Orson Welles - is sincerely admired and respected.
I can't say this movie is bad or overrated. It’s definitely not for the mass audience. And it will not be easy for a young audience to master this film (by the way, I am 21 years old at the time of writing this review). Most likely, from the point of view of the heritage of cinema, this brainchild is interesting to study and dig into it. At the time, it was a revolutionary movie. But these days it is extremely difficult to realize this fact, even if this movie became the ancestor of a lot of other films or even entire genres.
6 out of 10
Orson Welles became an icon of cinema, which introduced new concepts of genres, technological innovations to Hollywood and opened the world to drama. His famous creation “Citizen Kane” caused a furor in his time (the height of the Second World War), when tired people needed to distract from cruelty and violence, when they needed a look at everyday problems and relations between a man and a woman.
For me, the film is not bad, it demonstrates fatigue from the monotony of life together, reveals the inner qualities of a person and brings to the audience the idea that love is not the presence of material values, but attention, understanding and care. Orson Welles not only conveyed a cold and calculating man, but also showed that in a dark soul there is always room for light.
Who is Charles Foster Kane? Wells begins the narrative with a documentary about Mr. Kane to create an impression of the man, as well as bring events to the death of the protagonist. Yes, newspapers in all languages report Kane's death. There are headlines in Russian, too. Hence the development of flashback, but very skillfully and dosed information. Thanks to the documentary chronicle, everyone has in mind the image of the newspaper magnate who took The Inquirer to a new level, acquired industrial complexes and became the richest man in the country.
The detective thread originates from the last minutes of the tycoon, when the last words are the phrase: “Rosebud”. That's where we get into Kane's real life. The film begins with an already successful person and leads his achievements, aspiration and perfectly conveys the attitude of others to him. Charles reminds me of Fitzgerald. The great Gatsby, who, despite all the success, faces the bonds of love. A romantic detail that will forever change the life of the hero, flows like a happy event.
In the course of this time, the correspondent meets with various people who crossed paths with Kane during his lifetime. Thus, people close to him tell completely different details that are absent in the imagination of others. The picture begins to acquire a certain shadow of doubt and ruthlessly refers to the justifications of actions, and the newspaperman is more and more immersed in nervousness, cruelty and sticks to his opinion (the most important opinion!).
The film is characterized by smooth editing transitions without fragments of frames, which is easily and gently perceived by the viewer. The noir atmosphere reserves the right to ask questions and receive not very pleasant answers to them. I was also impressed by the episode, when at the dinner table there are months of relationships, according to the characters, you understand how this relationship developed. Kane is moving further away from the editorship, moving to the political field, and the more dangerous his game, the more this affects the personal life of the hero.
The mystery of the rose bud remains unsolved until the very last episode, but the connection with the past is buried with it in the fire. "Citizen Kane" is a demonstration of what is meant by wealth and opportunities that are not important to the true feelings and the loving person around. You can turn mountains in front of a lady, endow her with all kinds of things, build theaters and castles for her, but if there is no understanding and value of a person, then the rose bud begins to wither, counting only on its own strength. The metaphor is good.
Climax episodes fully convey the atmosphere of the stupor, the irresistible gravity of imaginary care and captive love, so the viewer changes his attitude to citizen Kane. The salvage straw is still "Rosebud", as if justifying the character.
I read about this film in the book Sid Field & #39; Screenplay: the basics of writing & #39; and was intrigued: what is he, number one in the list of the best American films according to the American Film Institute? . .
Expectations did not deceive, the impressions are the best, although they can not be called bright. There is something to admire and think about. The film, where Orson Welles and director, and producer, and screenwriter, and lead actor.
Starting to work in the newspaper business for the benefit of people, Charles Kane did not immediately notice how he turned away from his original path. The most significant phrase from his mouth is: 'If it weren't for money, I'd be a wonderful person' He wanted to fill the void in his life and thought he knew how to live. At the same time, the whole world lives by its rules. The famous American dream is immediately recalled, and Kane says that he was and will remain an American. And what does it lead to? Devastation, loneliness. Trying to create your own paradise - why if there is no one to be with?
Someone who knew all of America, who communicated with the most influential people in the leading countries of the world, died alone, in the company of servants and nurses.
At the very beginning of the film, we learn what this man had, what he owned and how much weight he had in his country and abroad. But as events unfold, we realize that he lost more than he gained.
For strange reasons, I followed the course of the narrative and its meaning more, so I can’t say anything more intelligible about the actors’ play than '. But what was striking is the impeccability and jewellery with which the film was shot. The frame-by-frame is a masterpiece. The installation is excellent, it is a real art. It seems that this painstaking process was approached not just responsibly, but inspiringly.
Nevertheless, no matter how much and by whatever means they tell us about the life of the newspaper tycoon, the essence, the answer to the main question we will get only in the latest frame. And let's see why the snowball was in the hand of citizen Charles Foster Kane in his last moments.
For that time, perhaps, different techniques of filming or editing were used here for the first time, and therefore the film in this part looks quite vivid. However, against the background of modern technology, none of this is impressive and does not attract attention.
In terms of shade, obviously overdosed, as a result, the faces of the characters are often not visible at all. It is clear that this was done intentionally, but in the context of the narrative it did not make any sense.
It's about meaning. To put it mildly, there is simply no meaning. Here's the story. Once upon a time there was a monstrously rich man who didn’t hit a finger to become one. In life, he was guided by vague, almost “rubber” principles, never had firm ideals on which he would consistently rely. He loved only himself and showed himself only as an egotist. I laid down my life to receive pleasures, the main of which I found in the publication of a popular newspaper. For some time, the film obsessively gushed that this fascination of the main character with the newspaper is directly related to its goal - to help fellow Americans in the realization of their legitimate interests and in the protection of their rights, but in fact there is nothing about it at all, i.e. only demagogy. For some reason, he was twice married, and for some reason spent a lot of money on idiotic quirks in his second marriage. He died alone in his most expensive palace in the world.
Further clarification is needed on the principles. At the beginning of the “labor” path, GG makes a statement about certain principles, which are essentially a verbal sham (this last one I emphasize). Subsequently, he defiantly rejects this declaration, which from an artistic point of view marks a significant change of the GG to the exact opposite. But in fact, this person remained the same “substances”, just changed the sign.
The film does not show how gradually the hero drowns his life in hedonistic pleasures, as the immersion in this happens immediately and with his head. I didn't notice any changes in the character in that part. He's just a goofy hoarder; and why he was collecting all this is not clear. No mental longing or emptiness is shown in it, which could be compensated in this way, did not starve as a child, was always spoiled by life, and was always a smug turkey.
In communication with his women, Kane also did not show much, and it is impossible to call this relationship love for sure: for some reason we married, for some reason lived together, for some reason we divorced. (In the second case, at least the motive of the initiator is clear.)
The main character is not interesting and stressed boring, his mysterious phrase, on which the whole plot is mixed - "rose bud" - outright nonsense. In pursuit of "intrigue" in the investigation of this phrase, the viewer is led by the nose for two hours along the life path of this "painted coffin." In fact, the viewer is initially given a false attitude, and forced to follow it as if it meant something. (The phrase is unequivocally related to the childhood of GG, but why he uttered it is actually impossible to understand.) One can only guess, but the film does not give an answer, and this is its main “mystery”.
The hero did not show himself in terms of powerful intelligence, organizational abilities, and all he knew from the plot - and this is known only from the newspaper news - is to publish news and thereby influence politics. He was familiar with the powerful of this world, and allegedly even influenced many fateful decisions, up to the outbreak of World War 1. What? As a person, this character is not disclosed in any way.
Trying to prove to the whole world that his wife is good at singing speaks to the mind of this man. So much money and time was spent on this mirage! Even his wife didn’t want to, but he did it by force. It's strange she didn't run away from him sooner.
When picking through the plot holes, it's easy to see that GG couldn't have ended up in such a place, doused with street mud when he met his second woman. A person of this size is carried in a personal car, and usually accompanied by security. Meetings of this kind are in principle impossible. Another ridiculous hole is the strange agitation inside the tycoon's palace after his death: who are all these people, and why are they so brazenly bossing around here? About the famous dying words, which in fact no one has heard, even to say ridiculous.
The film has a lot of pathetic orchestral music characteristic of the films of the time. The picture is replete with long gloomy backgrounds floating on top of each other, the narrative often develops inside poorly lit rooms or on night streets, and it is extremely rare to see bright colors or broad plans of open wildlife. From the sight of this picture through dead; here everything is dead: ideas, desires, deeds, fates, characters ... Secondary heroes here are more interesting than the main one.
Conclusion. Stupid G, nothing. And this is not even “lived sinful and died ridiculously”, there is generally a mortal longing, there is nothing to look at, there is nothing to explore and understand. "Grand personality"? Are you serious? At most, a person with a heavy character.
The Oscars are still for shit. Looks like they did. . .
Perhaps, an interesting image can be remembered from the film: a castle built on an artificial mountain, in which its owner dies alone. A certain apotheosis of the meaninglessness of such a being. But the image is not worth watching the movie. For today, this film is dead, at least for the average viewer.
PS
Wrote so much – purely out of respect for that perennial waterfall of laudatory saliva, which flooded up the nostrils of the entire “film-critical” atmosphere regarding this boring and unattractive “Citizen Kane”.
In 1998, the American Film Institute compiled a list of the 100 best American films, and in 2007 it was updated. There are a lot of films from the 40s and 60s on the list, and I plan to talk about them gradually, as well as look at these works from today.
First place is Citizen Kane, a 1941 film. Director Orson Welles himself and played a major role in it.
For its time, the film used many new techniques. For example, the same event is shown from different points of view, through the eyes of different people. Both the cameraman and the editor tried to surprise the viewer. What are the frames when the main character looks at the photo, and then it comes to life and he himself is inside this scene.
What about the movie itself?
Media magnate Kane lived a difficult but rich life. He builds a castle where he dies. Before he dies, Kane says, "Rosebud." But what does that mean? The mystery will be solved by journalist Thompson. He will meet with a companion of the rich, friends, will study the archives and gradually we, together with Thompson, unravel the life of the tycoon Kane.
Kane, as a young man, was sure that publishing a newspaper was fun.
- Making a lot of money isn’t that hard if all you want to do is make a lot of money, an old friend recalls.
Kane wanted to run the news 24 hours a day, and he was willing to live in the newsroom. He wanted his newspaper to become as necessary in New York as gas.
Gradually, Kane realizes what weapons have fallen into his hands and embarks on a political career. Unfortunately, a woman's career is falling apart.
The tycoon can't do it with women. The first marriage he fails himself, the second leads to shame. Kane listens to a girl who considers herself an opera singer, she sings Rosina's aria from the opera "The Barber of Seville" - Una voce poco fa. Kane wants to help the girl get on stage, but unfortunately, she is not as talented as he thinks. Kane even builds an opera house for the girl, but all in vain - she does not sing well. And you can't fix it with any money.
Over time, the life of the tycoon Kane begins to fall apart. He loses everything: betrays his own principles, somewhere disappears lightness of character and self-ironicity. And his rich palace is the dullest place on earth.
How's the movie looking today? Citizen Kane is an example of good storytelling and dialogue. There is nothing superfluous here - everything the characters talk about for two hours has meaning. This is a story about lost ideals, money, power, self-deception and how difficult it is to live life in accordance with your beliefs, and, in general, about the fact that money is not the main thing.
It looks great, it is easy to imagine that you are watching a modern film, stylized in the 50s. By the way, if he was shot today, DiCaprio would be right for the lead role.
Can you say that this film is the best? I don’t think there are too many great movies. But Citizen Kane is a great job.
And yes, you'll learn what Rosebud is - the word Kane said before he died.
I have often heard mention of this film. So I decided to see what kind of citizen he was. Orson Welles, the director and actor who played the main role in the film, showed us, known in his time, a financier and tycoon embodied in the image of one person – Charles Foster Kane. This film tried to show the above and similar people in a bad light, presenting them as arrogant and extremely unpleasant people.
The film begins with the fact that Charles Kane, already in old age, dies, uttering only one incomprehensible phrase “Rosebud” or, as it sounds in translation, “Bud of Roses”. This news causes a real whirlwind in the news, as the person is very famous and weighty, and a group of journalists begins an investigation by interviewing people close to Charles in order to understand what citizen Kane is.
Kane's story is told on behalf of his close friends. Speaking of Charles in turn, each character describes important moments in his life. Despite the fact that the story is conducted from the perspective of three people, the film does not seem to be any ragged, each thought of one person smoothly complements the thought of another, sometimes showing us the same event from different angles.
Kane's character is very well revealed. We see how as a young ambitious guy he wants to build his empire to help ordinary citizens, dreams of exposing the entire thieving segment of America in his newspaper and fighting lies. But, as often happens, everything changes, and all the principles, like the declaration of the same name, are torn to pieces, and on the stage there appears a power-hungry, arrogant rich man who, wanting to possess the opinion of people, unnoticed to himself, began to depend on their opinion. All he has to do is create his own country, where he will be a full-fledged monarch. But there's no one to rule that way.
What immediately caught my eye was camera work. The way the operator operates the camera and what angles he chooses, it deserves special praise. The camera’s angles and flights, combined with light, set the tone for the whole picture. It is known that influential personalities, such as Kane, were filmed from below to show his power and power, and weak and malleable people, respectively, from above. A lot of attention is paid to the light, which creates an incredible mood and atmosphere of the film. Remake Citizen Kane in color, as they wanted to do, and the whole style disappears, all the beauty of each frame and the picture as a whole disappears.
The film is technically and technically very good. I understand perfectly well that the creators wanted to show a large-scale picture of a grandiose personality that will break under the yoke of various circumstances. If the creators were able to convey the essence of the film, then I did not see the scale, probably all because I am spoiled for modern cinema. Never mind. I don't care about scale. The film left a favorable impression, left an indelible mark on my memory due to its style and beauty, and the personality of citizen Kane will shine bright and distant for me, reminding me of what a purposeful person one should be and what an arrogant monarch it is important not to become.
8 out of 10
Citizen Kane & #39 is a really great movie. Great not only because of the outstanding and somewhat pretentious play of the actors and painstaking camera work, but above all - because of a well-taken tragic note. The story of the American tycoon, who gradually took over the press and became, despite the divorce, the epitome of a respectable citizen (and this emphasizes the name) and American success (' the kid to success went'), gradually opens the second bottom - as befits in American culture, full of neurotic fear of decency and glossy picture.
However, there are no shocking dark secrets in this double day - the main details of the tycoon's life are also in the official biography; in this biography, we note, there are piquant details of the type of divorce with the first wife, the president's niece, because of the hobby ' singer' (but this only brings out ' citizen Kane' in the category ' stars', who are supposed to slightly eccentrate and neatly violate social norms). The official is interested in the results, and the viewer following the journalist is interested in the reasons for these results. Nothing shocking, everything is ordinary and sad: a boy whose fate was determined by a domineering and thirsty mother, a young man full of bright ideals, a mature man who loves money (suddenly), gradually loses loyal friends and becomes a lonely ruler. Even a woman’s sincere love cannot save him, as Kane is only interested in himself and his whims, believes that loved ones should do what he wants. Kane is not some savage from the outback - he is interested in opera, in his lonely castle - works of art, which he knows the value, but not the value.
The American dream is not destroyed in a linear manner - Kane died rich, with a stellar and somewhat scandalous fame, but at the same time quite respectable, no compromising material was found on him, except for the "#39" star. But this dream is mercilessly debunked - Kane's mental life rolls down in inverse proportion to his success and leaves a sense of longing and hopelessness. The mogul yearns for his pure and carefree childhood, from which it all began - hence, for example, a stupid souvenir (snowball) in the hand of a dying man. But there is no way out - the old pink sledges, on which it is written ' Pink Bud' (it is these two words that Kane pronounces before his death), burn in the fire, thrown there by indifferent workers, and around his castle there is a fence on which it is written ' Passage is forbidden' (from this frame the film begins, with this frame it ends). In approach and psychology, the film echoes the novels of Theodore Dreiser and is a vivid example of American tragedy.
10 out of 10
And I wondered why the film was so flat, and the characters regularly fall into moralizing as the story goes. It was taken by a man who was 24 years old. It is now clear why the film lacks wisdom and maturity.
Black and white presentation of the material, unambiguous characteristics (bad / good) do not pull the material for which the author took up. It is impossible to show the personality of a person who made fate and launches large-scale social processes with such an instrument.
It never worked.
The design of the plot also leaves much to be desired. Former tycoon dies and says “rose bud”
So what? What will change if you know what these two words mean?
Here it is trying to find out a journalist, it is a race after line in the newspaper, as long as there is something to write. I think that’s a weak motive for the story.
I took it as a way to tell a story, with each episode of the investigation we still don’t know anything about the hero, OK, but once again, it’s a very weak basis for intrigue.
I do not recommend watching for any purpose or under any circumstances.
It was magical. It was fascinating. That was amazing.
You don’t have to ask yourself, “Did this movie come out in 1941?” And this question doesn't interest you, because you're immersed in this masterpiece all the time. This film does not let go and does not want to be released. All right. Perfect.
The American Dream, what is it? How to achieve it and what to sacrifice? Citizen Kane, he's not just an American, he's a citizen. This citizen wants to be loved, wants attention and care. Most importantly, he wants power. But he is a citizen, so measures that contradict the laws resent him. So what's the way, then?
A long road to life. The viewer observes the beginning / childhood of Kane, his youth, becoming, peak and delight in his power, and the sunset.
The main thing in the film is the process of the way, the whole story, that is, the facts, you can learn in the first half hour. That is, exactly what in modern cinema stretches and sets the intrigue. This is the background, you know how it ends. Most importantly, why? Just like a reporter, you wonder why. Only here is not so much interest in the “pink bud”, and in the life of this person.
It is impossible to say whether it is good or bad, too contradictory. Like all people who make mistakes. But even this fabulously rich man becomes sorry at some point. What did he want? Love and attention. Everyone has their own “pink bud”, the personification of the ideal that you want to return, but it is impossible.
I can't believe this is a debut picture. So to construct a story and submit such a mysterious case of the hands of a highly experienced specialist. But no. Wells decided to fulfill his dream and did everything for this and even more.
After all, not everyone will risk taking everything into their own hands and taking responsibility. The last time Griffith did that, Orson Welles is making a revolution because he's a creative director. And his creation can stun and inspire, not just interest the audience, although this is a task. Greg Toland felt it and shot in such a way that the angles are surprising, the camera flies, and you try to keep up with it.
What is even more surprising is that many actors are debutants. Wells assembled a talented team and made a masterpiece. He didn’t just create the basis for other films. But also something elusive that is so difficult to achieve and impossible to repeat. Even if you try, there will be no sense of blindness. Only if you create your own Kane, your own story, your own spark, so shimmering and dazzling.
Orson Welles was 25 years old when he made the film, which is considered by many critics and film critics the greatest in the world. This newcomer to cinema received unheard-of carte blanche - right in the middle of a crowd of compromising Hollywood masters - including experienced and famous - an independent director shot and edited as and for how long he pleased - his second (just!) film, without asking anyone's permission and reporting to anyone. Now the influence of Citizen Kane on his work is noted by Scorsese, Gilliam, Nolan, Stone and many others.
Now the picture constantly occupies the first lines in various charts and tops. I think Citizen Kane is definitely iconic, though not the best. The choice of critics is understandable. Of all the great films of the classical Hollywood era, Citizen Kane is perhaps the most American. The compilers of these lists consciously or unconsciously exclude from them, for example, the films of Chaplin, the value of which, in my opinion, is disproportionately greater, and frankly, Wells himself was largely formed under the influence of Chaplin, Ford, Eisenstein, but, of course, no guide on American cinema will not include in the list of the best films, for example, underrated, “Mrs. Verda”, because it is difficult to imagine anything more anti-American, or “The Great Dictator”, which is more a manifesto than a film, but “Citizen Kane”, although it does not contain a very powerful criticism of an individual, as you look at all, in generalizing yourself, as a very individualistically, you do not raise a lot of yourself.
Or so it seems.
In my opinion, in the history of one man, he showed the fall of an entire nation. Citizen Kane is not a person, it is a country. It is a state based on the principles of freedom and equality, a world to which they fled after a dream, where they sought to create a new just society, devoid of hypocritical morality, rotten traditions and rules. At what point, Wells asks, is it that a person or a country becomes a bastard? Why does he (she) change his principles? What remains of Kane after his death? A fantastically huge dump of precious trash that he can't use? Tons of statues, paintings and marble staircases that have replaced the desire to live, to fight, to believe, to do good? What is "rozbad"? The moment that separates a person from a consumer? Or the country’s childhood, perhaps a constitution written with a sincere belief in a bright future, but found itself in a country where anyone who is not a millionaire is considered a loser and people rip their ass to become “lucky” and die in a lunatic race for the specter of success and wealth?
Who, if not Kane, the rich and famous, should take responsibility for the fate of the world? So why do these at first fiery orators and revolutionaries shy away from responsibility, preferring to hide behind castle walls, despised and hated by everyone, including members of their own families? At what point does selfishness triumph, when the megalomania is born, where man disappears behind the greenery of the almighty dollar? Almighty? How omnipotent is he if the man who owns him dies alone, ruining a lot of lives and not really living his own, not knowing a single moment of happiness. Why is it that a country that has freedom and everything to create devotes all its strength and resources to fighting other people’s ideologies and spreading its way of life everywhere, depriving others and its citizens of freedom at the same time, instead of trying to fight the vices within itself? Where does the path of self-destruction begin?
About “Citizen Kane” for many decades write film critics of all countries. Probably, this adds to the picture points – together with the outstanding work done by the cameraman Gregg Toland and Wells himself, who acted as an innovative director, telling the whole story in flashbacks, using many stylistic and technical techniques that later became textbook. This weightiness, textbookism, thoroughness, uncompromising evokes respect, which only grows from the contemplation of the work of makeup artists, artists (clearly well acquainted with German expressionism) and actors.
But I think Citizen Kane is an overrated movie. Yes, it is a vivid statement, a film full of symbols and riddles, it is a picture of the personality, the rise and fall of a person and perhaps a country - it attracts critics and delights intellectuals. But at the same time, the film is serenely cold and boring! He creates a sense of a puzzle, the absolute rationality of what is happening on the screen, it seems that Wells did not attach his soul and heart to his characters, but simply revelled in his own opportunity to create an original world on the screen. On the screen there is a tragedy of Shakespearean scale, deprived of life, like a news report - dry and insensitive. I didn’t experience any catharsis like in Monsieur Verdoux or Conformist, I had no one to associate with and no one to sympathize with. This film is devoid of empathy, love, feelings. One naked technicality. As in Brecht, the whole point is that the viewer does not pay attention to “what”, but only to “how”. "How" is admirable. "What" raises questions. And not always these questions are real interest, rather perplexity.
Wells plays a "powerless master," clearly alluding to his hero's Shakespearean origins. Huge, as if occupying all the space around, Wells in the role of Kane really turns into Richard III, then Henry VIII, intuitively following Shakespeare’s tradition of tragedies about debunked rulers, he then wanders through dull metaphorically endless rooms, as if devoid of ceilings, then in a fit of powerless rage ruins everything around, then executes, pardons, and, hopelessly regressing, sinks to the bottom. He is consumed by conscience, loneliness, fear, unfulfilled promises made to himself. If all this happened in the context of time, just as Chaplin and Verdou (by the way, it was Wells who suggested the plot to Chaplin) or “Dictator”, there might be a truth, the greatest film – perfect technically, intellectually and spiritually. However, Wells is locked away from the world in a Kafkaesque castle, and the tragedy of a spider entangled in a web, devouring himself, does not touch, detached from the rest of humanity. The spider turns out to be a spider with no cause, history, or consequences — and that’s missing.
The frenzy with which the "stylistic glutton" Wells attacked the cinema is admirable! No wonder some of the critics called "Citizen Kane" - a collection of all the techniques known at the time. In this case, he acts as “Eisenstein on the contrary”: the hero was the masses, Wells had a superman, and the people seem to be absent at all, the Russian classic has incredible editing techniques, inventive mise-en-scene and innovative technicality, the American classic – the same with a baroque flavor. Should I see this movie? Absolutely! But if you expect an emotional response from movies, don’t expect it from Citizen Kane. This is an encyclopedia, not a movie.
9 out of 10
Well, hello, the greatest movie ever. It's been a long time coming to you.
Do I agree that this painting is a great work of art? Absolutely.
Created by the young Orson Welles (by the way, and brilliantly played), Citizen Kane examines the indestructible dogmas of American capitalist society, offering us a collective image of the man-American dream.
Charlie Kane is a complete egoist, capable of capturing the minds of people with a huge number of publications. He is the power of the printed word, destroying and creating in love. But love perverted, wrong, directed only to himself.
For this reason, Kane died alone, clutching a crystal ball with a rose bud.
The picture looks amazingly technical. The introduction tells us about Kane’s life long before the whole exhibition and the climax. The very beginning of the film can be called truly brilliant.
Orson Welles created an incredible film in its power and globality, back in the early forties, when no one expected such a two-hour saga. Even now, Citizen Kane is perceived not as a museum exhibit, but as the most real and relevant work of art. Mastucci.
History knows many examples of individuals whose lives still raise a thousand questions about who these people really were. Some of them may have had such an influence on the course of events that many may regard them almost as gods. But in reality, they always remained the most ordinary people, as the protagonist of the detective drama Citizen Kane.
Synopsis In his huge mansion dies the famous media mogul Charles Foster Kane, having time to pronounce on his deathbed only one mysterious phrase “Pink bud”. Mr. Kane, whose person has always received so much attention, remains a mysterious figure even after his death. So when journalist Thompson is tasked with finding out what this phrase about "Pink Bud" meant, he goes in search of solving the mystery of Citizen Kane.
As you know, for most actors involved in the film, this film was the debut in the big movie. Therefore, first of all, I would like to note their excellent acting. First of all, it is worth highlighting Orson Welles as Mr. Kane, a man once devoted to the public good and human justice, but unable to resist the temptation of the power and wealth he gained that failed to recoup his total loneliness. Also liked was Joseph Cotton's performance as Jedediah Leland, a reporter and former best friend of Kane, who watched the protagonist's self-destruction with bitterness.
After watching the film, it is impossible not to tell about the magnificent directorial work of Orson Welles, whose style of shooting the picture determined the view of many modern directors. First of all, it is worth noting the depth of psychology with which Orson Welles plunged into the world created around the person of Citizen Kane, to convey how much he was surrounded by public attention, and despite this, how much he was lonely. In fact, the film itself opens with a rather long scene consisting of several frames, during which the viewer as if slowly approaching the castle of Mr. Kane. The texture of this scene is already filled with many symbols: the lock as the prison in which Kane locked himself, and his lonely location as the loneliness of Kane himself. I also liked the way the director described the events from the life of the main character from different points of view presented in the stories of his former friends and loved ones, whose lives were ruined by his all-consuming ego, who eventually ruined his own master.
Citizen Kane won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, and it was well deserved. Discarding the story of its creation, you should talk about the very structure of the plot, which ingeniously presents the biography of the main character. As mentioned earlier, the film opens with a mystical scene of Kane's death, during which he utters the phrase "Pink Bud." Next, the viewer sees the news chronicle, which presents a brief history of the life of the media mogul, and he may think that it was typical richer with its quirks. However, the journalist Thompson’s determination to get to the shrouded secret phrase leads him to several friends of Kane, describing not the activities of the hero, but Charles himself as an ordinary person. So, we learn that he came from a poor family, but miraculously found himself under the patronage of a wealthy man. Despite the wealth that surrounded him, he grew up a decent man who preferred to use the means for the triumph of justice. However, his methods gradually become dishonest. And the hero himself becomes impudent, impudent, cruel and dishonest. He is sure that everything and everything must obey his will, and he can buy absolutely everything, even love and friendship. But he loses both, remaining surrounded by soulless and silent luxuries that are really of no value to him. And the meaning of the phrase “Pink Bud”, of course, is revealed at the very end, but the ending raises only new questions, which is the genius of the script of the film.
Result Of course, the notion that Citizen Kane is the best movie ever made is just an exaggeration. However, it confirms the fact that for its time the picture was ahead of its competitors in style, plot, and technical parameters. The most valuable thing in the film is its atmosphere of mysticism, mystery, which shrouds the personality of Mr. Kane.
10 out of 10
The lives of people who have made a great contribution to the development of mankind or influenced history are covered with secrets, scandals and intrigues. However, if you watch a biographical film about an existing or existing person, then this film can be associated with reality, and only the existence of such a person can make the viewing interesting or at least informative. However, documentary film can cope with this task, and perhaps more successfully. What can interest the story of a fictional character, which is a collective image of a successful, influential and wealthy American who lived in the first half of the XX century?
First, the personality of a great man. What was he like? What guided you in life? His relationship with his family and loved ones? Great people are interested in their inner world. I want to know what qualities of his personality made him who he was. Citizen Kane focuses on the character. The film aims to show Charles Foster Kane from different angles. It is worth noting that the film does not cope with this task without problems. Initially, we are introduced to public opinion about who Kane was to the people, and then his identity is revealed, thanks to the stories about him of his friends, relatives and relatives. Embarrassing fragmentary and chronological inconsistency of some moments, since we go through the plot no longer chronologically, but thematically, first affecting his colleagues, which is associated with the period of his professional activity, and then his wives, thereby immersed in personal life, which sometimes intersects in time. As a result, we can put together the image of Charles Kane, but he seems to us a bit confused and bitty.
Second, a success story. Of course, the second has a lot to do with the first. The storyline, related as such to the duration of Kane, develops only in the first half of the film, and is used only for dispersal and involvement, since then more attention is paid to personal life, or rather relationship with spouses. This part of the film is the most dynamic and intriguing. This is where the conflict between Kane's personality and the established order is. In this part, Kane is a reformer with good goals, strong-willed and independent, and you want to keep an eye on that.
Third, scandal and intrigue. And then the film loses ground because it uses the mystery of the last words of the dying Kane to tie the main plot. It is Kane's last words that make us walk through the story of his life. Of course, this is an adequate move, otherwise the film would be a documentary. To finish the film requires intrigue, as it would be too obvious to end the film with the death of the hero, given the emphasis of the film on the life of the character. In general, the intrigue connecting the film is rather weak.
Citizen Kane is a film about a man. It is Kane's humanity that is examined and analyzed. The film describes Kane interestingly, but tells about his life uneven and fresh.
More important, however, are the issues and questions raised in the film. First of all, this is the confrontation of personal and public opinion, the ways of their formation, what should be a powerful person, the ethics of the influence of one person on the people of the country, the clash of civic duty and personal life of a person.
6 out of 10
“Hello Jedediah. You're fired. - Charles Foster Kane
To begin any review of this film by mentioning its significance at the moment is no longer just a polite move, but a rude tactlessness, which I will try to avoid. The fact is that you want to honor Citizen Kane not because it is great or revolutionary against the background of films of the 20th century, but because he is incredibly inventive in terms of his own narrative. And it is about what attracted me personally, it is on subjectivism that I want to build a review that will try to talk about this film as if it is something ordinary and invisible in a series of many and many films, and therefore so remarkable when realizing it after watching.
Orson Welles clearly understood what he was betting on in this picture and therefore worked with individual moments especially carefully and scrupulously. These moments, according to personal feelings, are the script and visual informing of the viewer. Here I would like to dwell on only one of these features, because each of them is quite voluminous, and therefore all two, I think, will not be able to fit in one review. And according to my personal preferences, I still pay tribute to the cameraman Gregg Toland and the editor Robert Wise, and I will spray about what struck my eyes, thus clearly remembering for a long time.
I am sure that the 25-year-old Orson Welles knew about such concepts as the “golden ratio” or “the principle of editing according to Eisenstein”, and even then the mother of the cinematographer Toland to say nothing, while his colleague Wise was almost as young as Wells, who together with him was engaged in editing, why, obviously, it turned out so memorable symbiosis. No, not artists, but styles. The symbiosis of styles of composition in the frame, the symbiosis of editing techniques, the symbiosis of focusing on different plans, the symbiosis of playing with light - every aspect in this film is diverse.
In the same composition, the authors, at the beginning of the scene, resorting to standard “thirds”, by hitting the camera or its distance, go to the Fibonacci spiral, then a small game with a focal length can go, or it was kept constant universal and now the viewer understands that along with what happens in the foreground, the authors point to him what is happening both in the middle and even in the background. Often there is a subtext of the scene, which can be an empty space for these couple of minutes, but an invaluable storehouse of information within the entire timekeeping of the picture. And this emphasis on details, constant work on the details of the scene, their design within the framework of classical artistic methods of storytelling - this in its combination generates visual comfort, interest in one appearance, because the understanding that it carries not only cosmetic content, is unambiguous and no longer in dispute for the viewer. However, staging a single scene is already a lot of work, and in the framework of Citizen Kane, it seems to be quite huge, but you need to link the scenes together. Moreover, not only script: the authors of the film give themselves credit on all plans, and therefore highly artistic delights do not resent them in all aspects. Therefore, smoothly interweaving not only the narrative, but also the editing of the picture, Orson Welles and Robert Wise resort to a combination of forms and images. They, through the symbolism of the hegemon Kane (the character of Orson Welles), pass to other symbols of his power - buildings, collections, productions, from each of these details in the narrative plan of the scene, the director is already separately removed, demonstrating the action before the next transition through a newly inventive angle or form, symbol or metaphor. And the most interesting thing about this is that it all works on the basis of visual contact.
I can’t even say that put this film without words, it would be impossible to understand. That's not true. However, words are the main mover of the plot, the McGuffin and the inducing incident in one person. Such an unusual, voluminous combination seems again impossible, but it is and is another distinctive feature of the film. The detail, which still most should be spread in the framework of reasoning about the scenario of the picture. And so I shall try to move smoothly to another subject, as smoothly as the shadow forms of one scene pass from one scene to another. And it’s not for nothing that I mentioned the shadow, because in the film it plays the role of not only a link. Nope. She, as well as what gives rise to her, namely light, plays a diverse role in the film, is the subject of design and conveyance of meaning, betrayal of significance. In the film, the authors then go into the realistic lighting of the office sidewalks, where outside the window of a parish weekday, connecting the viewer with something natural and familiar, displaying the beginning of a conscious path, then resort to unnaturally cold, gloomy lighting with predominant shadow, drawing on quite normal objects completely abnormal grotesque patterns, why you immediately understand where Tim Burtom drew inspiration for his semi-fantasy stories like Edward Scissorhands or Big Fish. Moments from childhood, foggy and funky happy, which the main character lost without his desire and guidance, are emphasized by the viewing angle of the camera, which only here allows you to look at the hero of Wells from top to bottom - this is another image that is most understandable when the all-powerful, as it seems, Kane's hand no longer allows the lens to look at itself in any other way than from below, and the light around changes, driving away the haze of memories and passing then into the naturalness of a much later "French wave", then into the surrealism of "Symphony of horror".
And again, what's really amazing to me is how harmoniously all this works together. How smoothly one flows into another and how graded in the film the difference of styles and methods, how evenly everything is served. This makes this film both extremely versatile and very simple, which is more than surprising. I think, personally, I can describe the film: amazing.
P.S. Thank you very much.
The film is just great, a head above any film of the 40s. It's even visually fascinating. Wells managed to make compositional complexity both unobtrusive and easy to perceive. The visual series perfectly conveys the feeling of immersion in the mysterious inner world of a person. The film looks like a whole, it must be watched from the first to the last minute. The action unfolds slowly, it is in many ways, visually and plot, conveys the process of compiling a puzzle, with close attention to every detail. Wells, like a botanist, chooses the flower of a person from thousands of similar people – one “citizen”, more remarkable than a thousand other “American citizens”. The tweezer opens the flower and folds the petals one to another, trying to find the “core”, “soul”, “key” to the solution of the personality.
The mystery of personality is the main leitmotif of the film, which is repeatedly transmitted by the play of shadows. A person immersed in a shadow, illuminated for a moment by the flash of fire, and an observer wandering past endless mysterious objects is a visual expression of the main idea of Citizen Kane.
Wells wonders who this clearly extraordinary man is. Kane knows the whole world, and as it turns out, no one knows. People know about his actions, statements, deeds, but he remains a wooden idol with empty eyes. Where Kane is, no one can answer. After death, it remains one huge question mark. Even his wives, seemingly the closest creatures to him, could not break through to the real Kane.
Indeed, Kane, confident that he controls hundreds of people, himself looks like a puppet whose agenda was laid out in childhood. For the rest of his life, he acts confidently, believing that he can decide what the world should be like. He's the one who controls people's minds. But is that true? Deprived of empathy, the businessman is not able to understand the real desires of people. He fulfills the desires he ascribes to them. Unable to love, he cannot accept love. Perfectly executing the program placed on his shoulders by early 20th-century capitalism, Kane has no inward need of the fruits of his efforts, and is losing one by one. At the same time, the feeling of loss, inner emptiness, overtakes him at the end of his life - along with the answer.
Where are the real feelings, the genuine desires of Kane? Where is his soul, was he born such a cardboard "successful citizen"?
Its essence is a “pink bud”. Not a sign of childish innocence or carelessness, but a clear Freudian symbol meaning female genitalia. Not for nothing, in search of a pink bud, Thompson turns to one woman, then to another. Kane's heart doesn't belong to these women. In fact, his soul remained in the snow-covered parental home, in this pivotal scene where he was made into a wooden doll by his own parents. His only woman is his mother. Kane never outgrew the moment in his childhood where Freud found the child's pathological attachment to the mother. So the pink bud is the mother, as Kane's first and only woman, and it's his lost essence, left in the bud, not evolved into an adult. Thompson never finds out. Really, from where? Kane never opened up to anyone. No one knew about the pink bud. Kane was no longer able to connect with anyone.
One can agree or disagree with Wells’ understanding of the human person. However, the way in which the film conveys the sense of mystery, innocence and depravity of the unknown side of the alien soul, probably has no analogues in cinema.
A person’s childhood determines his entire subsequent life.
I’ve known for a long time that Citizen Kane tops almost every list of the best films of all time. I was finally going to see it and now I probably understand why it is so popular, but why such unanimity and constancy among viewers and critics is still a mystery.
The film was released in 1941 and made for the most part by one person - Orson Welles (script, director and lead role). He was only 25 at the time.
If you carefully analyze the picture, of course, there are many innovative techniques. The reverse narrative (at that time, an absolute innovation) with interspersed flashbacks, a ringed structure, genre heterogeneity. Among the visual finds is a very thoughtful camera work and carefully staged light in each scene.
Technically, it's a detective. It begins with the death of the protagonist, media mogul Kane, who, dying, uttered one word - "rosebud" (rosebud), the meaning of which no one understood. One journalist, working on a biopic about Kane, begins to meet with his entourage and ask about the main character. Everyone sees it in their own way, and although we are talking about the same events, the storytellers give different versions of what happened. It is only at the end of the film that we learn what the rosebud Kane was talking about before he died. Moreover, the director shows the solution only to the viewer, the heroes remain in the dark.
Critics say that the main message of the film is the unknowability of any person, a mystery that no one can solve. And I would add another line: a person's childhood determines his entire subsequent life, and the ending of the film clearly showed that.
The phenomenon of the American Dream begins on film and ends with the words The.
Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles in 1941, tells the story of media mogul Charlie Kane, who built an empire on the yellow press and provocation. This man skillfully controlled the minds of millions through the correct (and most importantly, timely) information supplied. Don’t let the black and white movie scare you. This is a real masterpiece, which has everything: virtuoso cinematography, talented actors, costumes, scenery, as well as a beautiful script for which the film won the Oscar (you know, the award of 1941 inspires me more confidence than the modern one). Put aside prejudice and watch a great movie! If you remember John Gold, you should know Charlie Kane. This hero is the most true image of the American who symbolizes a big dream. The image of Kane is a collective image of many small things: he is a principled citizen, a far-sighted businessman, a true representative of the bourgeoisie, buying everything in his path, a wolf from Wall Street of his time.
But after watching this film, a dozen modern analogues on this topic, and reading the novel Atlas Shrugged, I came to the conclusion that the American dream and the great culture that is so comfortably replicated in the modern world under the image of American culture, is not as cool and progressive as it may seem (even the “scoop” I have much more trepidation). In the Soviet era, people flew into space, turned rivers back and built atomic bombs in a few years. If it were not for the Soviet Union, the Americans would not have even gone into space, because it is not profitable. Space is easier to shoot and show in a movie than to puzzle over how to fly there. The victory of the American way of thinking has created, over the past 20 years, a fantasy world of uninterrupted material consumption. This way of thinking atrophies people’s ability to dream. He nurtures us as a citizen Kane who has everything, but that's why he has nothing.
Write what? I don't even know.
When I started watching the movie, it felt like it wasn’t my option at all.
An unusual form of storytelling.
Unusual monologue dialogues.
An unusual timeline.
When I started watching the movie, I didn’t know what I was going to write about. When I finished watching the movie, I don’t know what I’m going to write about. For this film is really one of the best works of cinema.
I will share some of my impressions.
Where did it come from or where did it all go?
Films about personalities (autobiographical, documentary, semi-historical - do not matter).
In my opinion, they all have one fundamental difference that divides them into two categories.
- Success story. We are told several facts from a person’s life, as a rule, overcoming certain difficulties, making mistakes and, finally, victory, success, breakthrough.
- The way of life. The finale of the story can be as in the first version (although the concept of victory is very subjective). But the most important difference is that the path of the hero is shown from his childhood. And these films, I think, are deeper, more valuable, more instructive.
Citizen Kane is definitely in the second category. That's why it's more clingy. We all come from childhood and many events of this time are turning points, redefining our future.
We can’t change what happened to us (whether it’s a tragedy or a happy occasion). We can turn it into a victory or a defeat. We can change our attitude towards this event. It is in our power to take responsibility for our now adult life.
Kane's hero didn't do that.
It is no coincidence that he laments:
If it were not for my wealth, I would be a wonderful man.
- And not now?
It depends too much on the circumstances.
This film is a useful and informative story for those who love the theme “What would you do if you had a lot of money and did not need to work?”
Kane's story shows the conflict between a hobby (a perfect representation of what a newspaper should be) and its real-world implementation (competition, news creation, yellowness, politics).
I am often asked how (and if) a hobby can be turned into a profession or business. Watch the movie. Great answer. Kane had the choice to remain that unique newspaper, with its readership, with its circulation, with funding from other sources. But as soon as we start out of a hobby to do business, start competing in the market, whether we like it or not, we have to play by certain rules. Maintaining your individuality (mission) is becoming more difficult, and sometimes impossible.
This movie is a diamond. If desired and interested, it can be deployed and viewed from different sides. Review and review.
To the stories of a long life I want to return also because, will or not will, put on pause the plot and think, and what would happen if ...
If he heard the opinion of a friend, it is necessary to be more careful with the words that you declare.
If the father insisted and raised the son himself.
If the hero noticed in time that he no longer influences his newspaper, but the newspaper on him.
If only...
Yes, I know that history does not tolerate subjunctive inclination.
But when we watch movies, read books, listen to other people's autobiographies, is this not the best way to find the point where the rise or fall, the change in history, fate begins?
Isn’t this the best way to find examples that aren’t examples? To learn from others, there are no mistakes, stories.
This is a film about a child who never became an adult.
Dropped out of school after school knowing they were “buying” another option. He chose not to do business but to be interested, knowing that he could afford to lose one million a year for 60 years. If anything. He did what he wanted. Finance allowed us to choose and experiment. Not knowing the true value of money, he did not value his reputation (either personal or professional). He did not invest, but bought toys (statues, jewelry, land, houses). It turns out you can buy an opera, but you can't buy a voice for a singer; you can buy a group of reporters, but you can't buy an old friend's friendship.
This movie is a rich story.
What if you see it through the eyes of a child?
What if you look at it through the eyes of an entrepreneur?
What if through the eyes of a man who has money, like a fool of a Mahorka?
What about the eyes of a man who is passionate about his business?
What if through the eyes of a person who can change the world?
This is a film about a man who, disappointed in the real world, created his own.
Where he became the only citizen. Citizen Kane.
P.S. I don't know how to count usefulness in such a movie. And yet, there are more than 80 notes in the margins.
The film has two levels of perception: as a social phenomenon, as a personal appeal to everyone. Only this can explain the huge discrepancy in the assessments of film critics and the audience, who devoted only the time of the session to the film. The theme of the film is influence.
The filmmakers were able to reveal this topic with extraordinary persuasiveness because it was vital to them. At the time of the film, the press was the most influential means of shaping public opinion, with its consumers brought up on the printed word and thinking according to what is written.
The new means of communication, in order to win this market, had to, firstly, discredit a competitor, and secondly, convince the public that what they proposed was more consistent with their (the public’s) aspirations.
The film was intended to show the uniquely destructive role of manipulators of public opinion, exposing their moral decline for greater persuasiveness. This fall was seen as an inevitable consequence of their public role as staff cheaters. A dishonest person with everyone is unable to preserve decency in private life, to which the public is very sensitive in the assessments of public figures.
Movie exposure only prepared to conquer the market of influence on the public. To consolidate in place of the defamed press, it was necessary to create a consumer, educating his needs by the standards of radio and cinema. Cinema gives more room to determine your opinion, if only because it creates the illusion of action, not just a verbal report about it. Hence the increased requirements for the creators of journalistic films. They should teach the viewer to think, to make serious topics interesting, exciting so that the effectiveness of the film was not limited to viewing, but generated public resonance.
To strengthen the influence of cinema were designed to assess film critics, educating the tastes of the viewer. The spectacle of awarding the Academy prizes has firmly entered the public consciousness, and the influence of assessments has become decisive.
It is from the position of the Academy that Orson Welles’ film is a stage in the development of cinema, the initiator of a new one in public perception, in the education of a thinking viewer. Hence the still high marks of this not spectacular film.
Here is the inertia of gratitude to the discoverer in the conquest of public influence by cinema. The attention of modern viewers to the film is caused by its introduction to the pantheon of cinema.
And it does not matter that the response of the previous film can not cause, because the movies and viewers are different. This is the reason for the divergence in the assessment of the film as a public event and personal perception.
In personal perception, a film claimed as a detective is only to a small extent such. This is research, not investigation. A parable, not a revelation. And the topic of this research is the dictate of influence in social relations, inequality of influence in personal relations.
The development of the film shows that the inequality of influence, the recognition of this in personal relationships destroys even sincere feelings of affection and love. Having become unattainably influential, Kane becomes just as lonely. Can one hope that a proportionate desire for influence will preserve the capacity and possibilities of human joys of communication? There is an obstacle in the insatiability of the need to influence, over which the thirsty person himself has no power. He can quench this thirst, but it will affect things, comfort the inconsolable. If strong passions are the lot of strong people, then the price for them is self-destructive. Smoke reconnects with the surrounding world by which it showed its influence, making room for the air of equality necessary for all, where human feelings, not things, dominate. .
To say that this film is praised is to say nothing. They are literally admired. Critics’ ratings are simply skyrocketing, some of them even elevating it to the top of the rating of films of all time. In general, flattering reviews flow from all sides. Of course, all these factors warmed my interest quite a lot, the bar of expectations was so high that in the end for me this film was one of the biggest disappointments.
In principle, there is nothing to even discuss: it is just a very superficial film and its essence can be summarized in a couple of lines.
In the pursuit of money, a person misses the true sources of happiness, because following false ideals, he simply does not notice them. And then, as usual, it's too late. The end. This is not a brief description of the essence, it is absolutely all its semantic content. Not a word more.
All this is presented in the form of an axiom. The main topic that is presented to us remains undisclosed. Like, that's what happens. And why and how a person comes to this is silenced in the film. The inner world of the character remains a mystery to both those around Kane and the viewer. There is no climax in the film. He was just making money until he died. I couldn't see he wasn't comfortable with that. I didn’t realize he was interested in anything else during the film. To be honest, I didn’t notice it at the end. There are no deep ideas or messages either. At the moment, there are a bunch of modern films much more piercing, meaningful and deep in their essence on this topic. There is nothing to think about after watching, only about the overestimation of this creation. It is possible that at that time he was good, but in this case it is terrible to imagine the intellectual value of the cinema of those years, because it is believed that he surpassed the vast majority of films of his time.
In general, against the background of the already filmed movie, this film is frankly stingy in depth of thought and feelings. Overrated dummy. Don’t try to find something in it that isn’t there, pretending that you dig deeper than others and understand smart movies better.
There are tapes, which is like a myth - you hear their name sounding in the wind, but you can not catch this fleeting sound. And then again and again...
So, Citizen Kane finally got to me. I put off watching for a long time - there was a feeling that a certain moment was needed. And when it came, I enjoyed watching.
The first thing you encounter is a great cameraman. Throughout the film, you will see the real skill of shooting - excellent angles, a smooth change of frames between scenes. You start to feel like you are being lulled...
Until the story begins to gain momentum. You start to get nervous because the mystery of Mr. Kane's cryptic phrase is getting closer. Passing by all the milestones of his life — so interesting, so bright, public and dramatic.
A huge role in the emerging intrigue should be given to acting. The abundance of characters perfectly merges into a single, harmonious picture of the narrative, the center of gravity of which is the main character - with his arrogant vision of the world and exorbitant ambitions.
The web of numerous thoughts that arises in your head is the result of the rattling of individual threads, for which the entire staff who worked on the film pulls in unison. Indeed, that dance of associations, born of this creation, awakens inner harmony and the desire to sit in a chair, indulged in reflection.
I recommend this tape for viewing, because the observed action and the aftertaste it leaves is very rare these days.
Film legend, film cult, film event, film as an example of cinematic art. All this is Citizen Kane, recognized by most film critics as the best picture of all time. However, today it is difficult to see all its value, because the "masterpiece" of the tape is no longer obvious due to the subsequent development of cinema. When watching the film, many people may have a legitimate question - does Kane really deserve all the honors he receives? The answer is yes.
As we will see later, literally all aspects of the film (from the movements of the camera to the structure of the plot) are focused on the representation of a clear and clear philosophical idea, which even an idea can not be called, because it expresses the entire ontology of modernity, represents the very essence of man of the “new era”, for Kane is a film philosophy in its pure form, an act of creation that covers the entire universe, assembled in two hours of screen time. But everything in order.
Kane’s genius is manifested primarily in the innovative approach that takes place with regard to a revolutionary and completely atypical narrative plan. The plot structure is a compilation of flashbacks. The classical unity of the linear narrative splits into fragments of existence, taken out of the context of the fate of the character. Of course, flashbacks have been used before, but it was Wells who brought them from the status of a piquant feature to the category of fundamental components of the picture. Later, the idea of asynchronous narrative was strengthened by representatives of the “new wave” (especially Alain René), through which it was subsequently assimilated in mass cinema. What is the ideological nature of Wells’s approach? The fact is that here the very idea of abolishing the form of time as a kind of unity is expressed. Today, thanks to the development of technology, time has shifted in phase, gone mad. In megacities, the day is indistinguishable from the night, during flights, the time line is compressed to the size of a point, and for a certain amount you can even be in another time, in another place and ... another person. In this regard, being itself broke up into a collection of singularities, original events, and once a single “path of fate” turned into a puzzle, assembled from fragments barely fitting together.
However, Wells is not content with chronological illustration of this circumstance, but also transforms the discursive component. In fact, the story of Kane’s life is a panopticum, at the center of which is an inexplicable thing (the word “Rosebud” dropped by Kane the moment before he died), in fact, the most existential essence, the secret core of our being. By means of a simple technique - the image of the protagonist through the prism of seeing other characters, Wells invades the field of existentialism philosophy, according to which a person exists mainly in other people's heads, as a phenomenon, and always in one way or another (conceived in the opposite) way interpreted. So is being. Kane according to Wells is a patchwork of other people's memories. It would seem to be an extremely unusual point of view, but if you think about it – what else can remain of our lives, except for memories? According to Sartre, “The dead who could not be saved and carried aboard the recollections of the subject living now do not belong to the past, but they and their past have disappeared.” Kane, like no other film, expresses this idea directly.
But what is the truth of existence, the mysterious Rosebud? The truth of our personality is hidden under a bush of hundreds and thousands of roles we learn every day, habits imposed from the outside, and the capitalist way of life itself, based on perpetual acting, copying images and changing masks. You learn to do this since childhood, and Kane is still a child, having torn away from the family, the banking system “hospitable”. The truth of the hero lies in the unbearable homesickness and severe psychological trauma, the reaction to which was the monumental building of a fictitious person named “Citizen Kane”, and all the luxurious splendor and extravagant waste was just a futile attempt to fill the vacuum in the soul.
The most important role in the narrative is played by the mass media, again representing the main idea of the simulated personality. Long before the theory of communication came into being, Wells had already introduced all its fundamental principles. It is thanks to the loss and forgetting of his own self that Kane is a brilliant marketer who knows how to turn his name into a brand through such means of communication as print, radio and television, thanks to them, every coincidence turns into an Event, lies become the truth, and hypocrites look heroes. However, with such a powerful weapon in hand, it is easy to become a victim of it yourself, which is what happens to the giant Kane, who became hostage to his image.
The paradoxical self-contradiction of the film is also manifested in the technical aspect. Surprisingly, 25-year-old Orson Welles, who has no cinematic experience, got in touch with old-school veteran Gregg Tolland, who promised to try to honestly fulfill all the craziest ideas of his younger colleague. “Let’s just try it,” he said every five minutes. As a result, Wells, most likely without knowing it, used all the tools of non-Hollywood cinema, approving the revolutionary technical innovations on the Dream Factory - short focus, shooting from impossible points, lighting and scenery in the style of German expressionism, deep shots, long plans, as well as intricate camera movements that fascinate the viewer in the manner of inexplicable tricks that have always succeeded Wells brilliantly.
And finally, the main question is whether the film itself is not a genius, but a trick, a fake masterpiece, grown by chance. Some argue that Kane is just a dazzling flash that happened at the right time, in the right place, and that Wells has only “played” genius all his life. However, even if you accept this point of view, remembering that the dialogues were really written on the knee, mise-en-scene were built right along the course of filming, and technical tricks often overshadow semantic collapses, and agree that this tape is nothing more than a “simulacrum” of a masterpiece, it will still remain the most masterpiece simulacrum of all time, a seductive trick, the secret of which is simple as the word Rosebud, but harbors the same infinite meaning, the power of which still needs to be seen.
As a result, it should be stated that this is undoubtedly one of the landmark films of the twentieth century. It expresses the whole universe of capitalist existence, firmly established on the globe a few years after Kane’s release, and concurrently the very essence of America (personified in the image of Kane), whose once noble and democratic goals have been distorted into hypocritical abstractions, and all eternal “declarations” have gone to hell. In the history of cinema, his role is determined rather not by direct stylistic influence, but by the indirect fact of his appearance in the “big world” – he “officially” opened up new horizons for the viewer and artist, which have successfully begun to be mastered and are still being mastered. But you have to pay for everything - so Wells paid for the success of the film with a broken career and a difficult fate. Alas, that's the price of victory that old Kane would have confirmed.
French film critic Jacques Lursel, extremely biased, but very “delicious” wrote about cinema at every opportunity mentioned that
The main talent of Orson Welles was the ability to convince others of his own genius.
The style of most of his films is Baroque. The director puts on display all the available luxury: long plans, unusual angles with a ceiling in the frame, carefully exposed light, “deep focus”, symbolism, verified composition.
Time will put everything in its place.
I think this assessment is quite fair. As an amateur photographer, I love a juicy black and white picture with deep shadows and Dutch angles. But I don't expect movies to be just a sequence of carefully polished photos. It is difficult for me to call Citizen Kane the greatest film in the history of cinema, but it is definitely worth watching - it is a perfect example of an insanely beautiful Baroque facade, behind which bare walls hide.
Charles Foster Kane can be called the embodiment of Wells cinema and the alter ego of Wells himself. What do we know about Kane from the introductory documentary in the film? One of the richest citizens of the United States, an influential newspaper tycoon, politician, a mysterious and mysterious man who hid in a cyclopean castle. How is all this mystery and influence expressed in the film? Almost nothing. We watch for two hours a man who makes loud statements: proclaims the principles of objective journalism, loudly declares his influence, threatens his opponent in elections with prison. His intentions and statements are not illustrated in any way, his character is not disclosed. We learn a little about his personality - Kane turned out to be a dummy.
It is worth forgetting about dramaturgy and cardboard characters, completely immersed in the study of visual charms, consider it as an exhibition of the achievements of camera art of those years. There are, if not impressive (for the viewer of the XXI century), very interesting scenes: the flight of the camera through the neon sign, the scenery inside the Xananadu Palace, the shadow of Kane approaching Susan Alexander and several scenes with focus steak.
Without excessive modesty, Orson Welles’ debut work can be called a masterpiece of world cinema for a number of reasons:
The film is a harmonious combination of a well-written plot and its detailed embodiment. The compositional part is really thought out to the smallest detail, the audience does not have a feeling of incompleteness or misunderstanding of the plot twists. Despite the violation of the natural course of events, which is achieved by an impressive number of retrospection, all scenes are folded in the head like puzzles. Over time, the missing parts of the plot or lost semantic connections are found, as well as the main solution to the whole film, the answer to the question: “What is Rosebud?” In addition to retrospection, one of the leading compositional techniques on which the film is based is subtext and intertext. Those who are familiar with the history of journalism can understand that the prototype of Charles Kane was the American media mogul – William Hearst. It was with his name that the emergence of the “yellow press” in its classical sense began to be associated. The film quoted direct quotes from Hearst, but this was not a reason for his pride.
Not wanting the film to be released, Hearst, with the help of his media empire, started a real war with Wells. Citizen Kane was seen in major American cities, but in the provinces, especially in the South, the strength was on the side of Hearst's papers. In addition, most of Hearst’s papers made it even easier to boycott the film. This is one of the few times in U.S. history that a film has caused such a storm in political and public circles.
The protest of the media mogul is also not surprising, since the film openly tells about a person’s betrayal of truth and truth, dependence on money and the consequences of these actions through the loss of everything spiritual and close to him. Wells’ work clearly indicates that a person can endlessly engage in accumulation, even beautiful things, but they can never fill the deep void in the zone of his feelings. Just like the statue of Venus of Milo will not make up for the separation from his mother or the separation from the only woman he loves.
If we move away from the plot to the visual embodiment, then it is also worth noting the professional work of the operator and director. The scenes look like they were worked on for hours, paying attention to every detail. The frames are built on the principle of clear geometry, much attention is paid to the perspectives of the characters: “the camera always looks at Kane and Leland from the bottom up, while the weaker characters, for example, Susan Alexander, from the top down.” In addition, the exact arrangement of scenery and focus on the characters and their general background are observed. Competent setting of light, movement and location of the camera, complete perfectionism in terms of visualization and aesthetics embodied in small things. If we turn on the film and pause at any time, we can see the full picture.
This film is a vivid illustration of the fact that it is not visual computer effects that affect the aesthetics or impressiveness of the picture, not the color scheme and color correction, but pedantic accuracy, attention to all aspects in general that can make a film a masterpiece. In modern realities, behind the colorful effects, over which graphic designers work for hours, lies an unthought-out plot with huge semantic holes. Citizen Kane once again proves that mastery is primarily a mechanism consisting of attentiveness to details. From the location of the hero in the frame, to his acting.
Time and development of computer technology are not an indicator of quality, unlike the professional work of a team. It is worth mentioning that at the time of the release of the film, the director and actor Orson Welles was 25 years old, which did not prevent him from doing the work at the level of high professionalism. Many people correlate age with a person’s qualitative skills, missing one serious fact: it does not matter how many hours, days or years a person has lived, it matters how much meaning and knowledge he was able to put into himself and his work during the time given to him. Citizen Kane is on screen for one hour and fifty-nine minutes, and in every second of this film, the creators put in the maximum meaning.
10 out of 10