A group of reporters are trying to decipher the last word ever spoken by Charles Foster Kane, the millionaire newspaper tycoon: "Rosebud". The film begins with a news reel detailing Kane's life for the masses, and then from there, we are shown flashbacks from Kane's life. As the reporters investigate further, the viewers see a display of a fascinating man's rise to fame, and how he eventually fell off the top of the world.Written by
George Coulouris, who played Kane's legal guardian, posed for two hours for a papier-maché statue of himself. He later petitioned the Screen Actors' Guild for payment for those two hours and won his case. See more »
In the newsreel, the announcer states how a defaulting boarder had left the deed to a supposedly worthless mine (the Colorado Lode) to Mary Kane in 1868, then begins his next sentence, "Fifty-seven years later, before a Congressional committee," as the film cuts to an old newsreel of Thatcher testifying before the committee. Fifty-seven years after 1868 would be 1925. As "talking" pictures were at best still in the experimental stage and in any case not in use in 1925, it would not be realistic that the newsreel of Thatcher testifying before Congress would have sound. Similarly, the sequence immediately following Thatcher's testimony, stated by the announcer as "that same month in Union Square", depicting the radical speaker denouncing Kane, would also not have had sound. See more »
OK look, let me settle something between those who love and hate this film. A lot of people hail this film because it is technically brilliant and ground breaking. Director Orson Welles did a lot of things visually that no one had ever done before. Nearly every film maker was in some way influenced by this movie. This movie also had a great impact in its time. The title character was based on media giant William Randolph Hearst. He was that generations Donald Trump. He opposed this film so much he did everything in its power to stop its release and almost succeeded. Lastly this film contains some of the strongest and most common themes in literature; Life versus death. It is for these reasons why this film is so revered.
On the contrary people who hate this film mainly complain that it is boring. Which is a legitimate complaint. The story is slow compared to today's standards, and there is no real Hearst character alive today in which to relate. So yes, the story on the surface is outdated. However, this does not make it a bad movie. It was not made as a Matrix/Star Wars type of movie which can be enjoyed even at surface level. This is not pure entertainment. Remember there is more to film than storytelling. This film was designed to be cinematically beautiful and to tell a basic story of love and redemption. There is much more to the story than the thinly veiled attack on Hearst, one just needs to look deeper. Look at Shakespeare or Hawthorne for example, their literary works are universally loved. Yet, many people blow them off because they refuse to look past the outdated language into the beautiful prose and simple ubiquitous themes. Just because something is outdated does not mean it lacks worth in today's world.
My advice to those who did not like it the first time or have not seen it yet is simple. Watch it again for what it is. Do not expect to be on the edge of your seat for two hours. Watch it for the cinematography that alone makes this film among the best (I don't agree with AFI's number one ranking but I think it still ranks high). Look deeper into the story and try to connect with it on some level. At the very least appreciate how influential this film was and where the industry would be without it. If you can do this, then maybe some of the naysayers will change their minds. Again, you do not have to love Citizen Kane, but at least respect it for what it is.
629 of 960 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this