Citizen Kane

1. How did you see Citizen Kane differently as a “film studies” student? What did you notice that was meaningful to you beyond the basic entertainment/themes of the movie? What do you think you paid more attention to because you’ve spent some time in this class?

In any other setting, I think I would have been very bored and, quite honestly, annoyed by Citizen Kane. The slow pace and arrogant, controlling main character would have made the movie drag on and on for me. But, since I focused most of my attention on the creative composition, editing, camera angles, lighting, and moving camera features, I was impressed. There's one moment that I've brought up in class a few times because it has stuck with me most from the movie in terms of enjoyment and, quite frankly, awe at the time of watching it. Susan is sitting on the floor in Xanadu screaming at Kane that he never gives her anything she wants and that she wants to quit opera after Leland's scathing review of her performance is published. Kane, infuriated, slowly walks towards her until he's there, towering over her and leering down so that his shadow completely obscures her. The only thing we as the viewers see is her glistening eyes staring up at a man who has nothing but contempt for her words. It's chilling. Those few seconds of shadow convey so much about Kane's character, I think, and it's pretty remarkable that such a creepy feeling can still overtake the viewer, even 80 years later when we've seen much, much scarier things on screen. In this way, I definitely paid more attention to angles and lighting -- I never pay attention to lighting unless it's so painfully clear that something is happening with it, so I enjoyed this. 

2. What’s something super-interesting/insightful that ANOTHER student said during our discussion that meant something to your understanding of the movie? Use the student’s first name, and explain what he/she said and why it connected with you so strongly.

Chloe had mentioned how Kane was filling the void in his life with material objects and successes of himself and of others to make up for the hollowness he felt because of his lack of a childhood. She really emphasized the amount of crap that permeated his half-unfinished mansion, and how enormous and eerily spacious it was. I thought it was interesting to note the props in the film, since I was focusing more on what was being said and less on what was being shown all around. The props (statues, furniture, expensive knickknacks, etc.) really added to the cheapness of Kane's character, which I think was a very astute observation. Chloe tied everything back to the moment Kane was given away by his parents, and how there were indications that his father could be abusive when he drank (the mother said something along the lines of he'll be going somewhere where the father can't get his hands on him). This was the root of his deeply flawed character, and she used the physical objects all around him to build the point that his life was so empty despite it being so full of things. I thought this was a really neat way of combining the intangible with the tangible, and it got at a dichotomous idea within the movie. 

3. We didn’t really get much opportunity to examine what your articles had to say. What’s the most significant quote/comment from the article you printed out for class? Quote it and use a sentence or two to explain why you found it to be important/interesting.

"And, although it may not give a thoroughly clear answer, at least it brings to mind one deeply moral thought: For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" First off, this was written in May of 1941, so the singsong-like quality of this writing is satisfying to read. Secondly and of more substance, I think it got very clearly and concisely at the central idea of Citizen Kane. It summarized the sub-plots and the digressions and whatnot and simplified it to its essence: a main who gains everything important to him and loses everything important. 

4. After talking about the movie with other film students for a while, has your reaction/feeling about the movie shifted at all? Ultimately, where to you stand on this movie? Where do you stand on the controversy of it being the top of so many lists?

I guess it's top of the tops because it's so revolutionary in terms of the artistic creation of the film (and the controversy behind it). For 1941, it's pretty impressive that Orson Welles and his crew took the risk to make ceilings out of fabric to house lights up there, and play with depth and deep space composition in Kane's childhood home and in conversation with Leland, and use shadows to convey the menacing side of Kane's character. That's pretty revolutionary. That being said, I don't think it doesn't deserve the tippity-top of all lists. It's great in that respect, but a million movies have been made since then that use the same cool techniques and do them better -- cleaner, crisper, more intense, more strategic. It's had its time in the sun, and now it's time to be bumped down on the lists; movie-making techniques adapt and become better over time, I think. Kane was great in its time, but now has become somewhat obsolete per the natural passage of time and film-development. I also think the greatness of a movie should be encompassed in the movie itself; that is, no outside controversies (Hearth and his yellow journalism, feuds, battles, etc.) surrounding the movie should have sway on what is the response to what is shown on the screen -- especially not 80 years later.