Any art becomes harder to appreciate as time passes. We look at statues and paintings from, lets say the Ancient Greece, and we appreciate them for their aesthetic, their style and the craftsmanship that went into making them. Yet we often know very little about why or even how they were made. Were they political in their time, like art often is nowadays, or were they made simply to feed the artist, like some of the greatest works of art in history have sometimes been made? And if we somehow found out that a painting of a human figure in some prehistoric cave was actually a political satire of the rival clan chief, would it add value to the work?
I ponder this because I don't think I fully get Citizen Kane, or if I even can get it without a degree in history. Back in its days, the film was widely applauded for its groundbreaking style and its cinematographic feats. Orson Welles put himself on the map by pulling off tricks and visuals that had never been seen before. He also based the story of one Charles Foster Kane on a real life business tycoon William Randolph Hearst, a polarizing figure back then, thus tying the film to the days of its release.
And I view this film and I must admit that it didn't blow me away. The cinematography is brilliant and impressive, but I've seen most of the tricks already in newer films, and thus their impact is lessened. And while it's an interesting character study about the meaning of contentment, wealth and American ideals, I was left with the impression that I was missing something. And I think it's that I have no real life parallels to compare this film to. Especially seeing as I'm not an American.
Is it still a good film? Oh, definitely. It's a pioneer of its field, its themes are very deep, it's beautiful on the technical level and even the story, while rather slow, does keep you interested through the capturing presence of Welles' acting. I do recommend seeing it, though I must admit that I respect it more than I like it.
