Skip to main content

Citizen Kane, and the Problem with Film Ranking

            In 1939 theatre and radio star Orson Welles was offered a generous contract by RKO pictures to bring his talents to Hollywood. This contract called for him to write, direct, produce, cast, and star in two films, and promised him complete creative control over the films’ final cut. Giving such a munificent contract to an untested director was a great risk; especially as the film he made was a hit piece on William Randolph Hearst, America’s biggest media mogul. Hearst met the completed film with fury, and he did everything in his power to prevent the film from becoming commercially successful by pulling all advertising for it and all other RKO pictures. Still, try as he might, Hearst could not bury such an achievement; Citizen Kane captured audiences, and is now widely considered the greatest film of all time.
            Citizen Kane, like Birth of a Nation before it, brought together all the possibilities of cinema and forever changed the rules of the game. Kane’s technical achievements in photography, make-up, set design, music, and editing upped the ante for what subsequent films had to aspire to. Hearst might have been able to marshal the extras unions to prevent Welles from winning the Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor Oscars, but Kane was too big to be ignored, and made an immediate impact across the film world.
            Starting in the late 1950s, when the arrival of television meant that it was rediscovered by mass audiences, many have widely and repeatedly asserted that Citizen Kane is the greatest film of all time. The film was number one on Sight and Sound magazine’s great films list from 1962-2002, pushed down to the number two spot in 2012 by Hitchcock’s Vertigo. In 1998 and again 2007, the American Film Institute also declared Kane the greatest film of all time. Roger Ebert called it the greatest film of all time, and also his favourite film. Around the world, several other critics, magazines, filmmakers, and fans have repeated this sentiment, to the point that it is now hard to argue otherwise – Citizen Kane simply is the all time greatest movie.
           
           There is no doubt, therefore, that it is a very, very great movie, and for the purposes of not having to endlessly debate the question, it provides a neat and tidy stock answer. Let Kane be considered the best, just so we don’t have to argue about it, because ultimately, what does it matter if it is or it isn’t? If another film strikes you deeper, hits you on a gut level and changes the way you interact with cinema, yourself, and the world, why can’t you simply decide that that film is the greatest? In the end the idea of greatest is all subjective. I believe that Citizen Kane is great, I will even accept that it is the greatest of all time, whatever that means, but that doesn’t mean it is my favourite film. That honour goes to It’s A Wonderful Life, because I view George Bailey as the model citizen whom all of us should aspire to be like, and because of the ineffable emotional qualities that bring tears of happiness to my eyes on every viewing. For all of its grandeur, for all of its beauty, art, magic, depth and tragedy, for all of the esteem and admiration I have for Welles, Kane falls short on my favourite films list, which, in the end, is the most important film list to me. Citizen Kane should and will continued to be studied, admired, and loved, and for whatever its worth, it can keep the title of cinema’s greatest film, at least for all the influence it has had over the medium. The rest of us will continue to decide what we think is the greatest. 

*  *  *

       One final post script about Orson Welles, who was forced to pay the price for his daring vision; after Citizen Kane, the twenty-five year old was seen as a liability by studios, which reneged on the final cut privileges and the next year mutilated his sophomore effort, The Magnificent Ambersons. Welles had always been aware of his extraordinary talent, and this awareness gained him a reputation as arrogant and hard to work with. Never again would Welles be able to make films with the artistic freedom and studio funds that he had with Kane; although he managed to self finance a few great works, one mourns the fact that he was from then on always stifled in his potential.             
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Actor/Director

When I was a kid I used to watch Home Movies on Adult Swim, a show about kids who try to make movies with a hand held camera. I remember the main character, who was the director, saying at one point that he was going to switch roles with his friend and become the actor, because every director wants to act, and every actor wants to direct. Hollywood keeps proving this statement true. Spike Lee regularly appears in his own movies, Tarantino has done it, Kevin Smith wrote Silent Bob for himself, David Lynch acted in Twin Peaks, Martin Scorsese, Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Fritz Lang, the list goes on of directors who have appeared in their own films. Then there are those who have had full time jobs as both actors and directors, most notably Orson Welles and Clint Eastwood. Both of them can be studied in either context, and often appear in their own work. But what I’m getting to are the actors, who make it big in Hollywood, and then try their hand at directing. These films are what interest
5 comments
Read more

I Really Miss Roger Ebert

Note: I originally wrote this article in 2011, and in July 2015 accidentally deleted it. When I reinstated it I decided to revise a lot of it. I find that I miss Roger Ebert whenever a great film is released, as I would love to be able to read his thoughts on films like Birdman or Boyhood. I highly recommend the documentary about his life, titled Life Itself.   The film critic – perhaps, in many ways, the most useless job on the planet. Nobody lives or dies, goes hungry or starves, or makes any important life change whatsoever based on the opinion of a film critic. I decided not to go to film school because I could not see myself doing anything important with a film degree. Most audiences pay no attention to these journalists, and often critics are the butt of a joke for poorly rated popular filmmakers. Still I am very grateful for those who have taken up the occupation – I personally read film criticism and, obviously, write it for my own enjoyment. I am a fan of AO Scott, Peter
2 comments
Read more

I Still Don't Like Spielberg

Sorry. Four years ago I wrote an article about my issues with Steven Spielberg, particularly taking aim at Schindler’s List and AI , mostly from the Kubrickian critique I had developed at the time. As time has passed and I have seen hundreds more films to greater contextualise the man and his work, I decided it was time for a re-evaluation of Spielberg on my part. After all, the age of the “coffee table” Hollywood drama seems to be winding down, as studios continue their unfortunate output of sequels, reboots, and superhero franchises. I sometimes pine for the days when Hollywood at least made an effort and created Oscar bait - independent films dominated awards season this year, with American Sniper being the only studio film nominated for Best Picture. So this week I watched four films I had never seen before from Spielberg’s back catalogue, in the hope of being able to soften my stance towards him. With détente declared, I watched Amistad , a film grounded in the little
4 comments
Read more