I would have to go after the big dog eventually.
Do I need to recount the reputation that Orson Welles’ 1941 classic Citizen Kane has in the eyes of the world? This was the film that, despite having lost the Best Picture Oscar to How Green Was My Valley, has gone on to be voted the #1 film of all time on every single BFI Sight & Sound poll starting in 1962, only losing the top spot in 2012 (Vertigo, man… I sense a rivalry growing). But beyond that, I shouldn’t need to say that there is a general critical consensus amongst both critics and casual filmgoers that Citizen Kane really is the greatest film of all time. On any and all casual film polls, it often beats out everything, only ever vying with Casablanca or maybe Bicycle Thieves as the best ever.
There is, however, a strong and vocal contingent of naysayers in the world. Professional critics tend to vaunt Citizen Kane without question, but there is a camp of civilian Kane-haters who find the film to be – horror of horrors – less than perfect, and who are particularly annoyed by the world’s constant insistence that they should be enjoying this film they find boring. How could you not, naysayers? How could you not like the greatest movie of all time?
Check Out: Trolling #51: Jonah Hex RULES!
To them, this installment Trolling is dedicated. If it is the job of Trolling to look at beloved movies and put our fingers in the cracks, then it was just a matter of time before we got to the best movie of all time. And here’s the thing: Citizen Kane, for however brilliant its reputation would insist it is, has cracks to probe. Indeed, once, you start rooting around, one may find that this glittering untouchable edifice might be worthy of a few solid cannon shots. I offer a voice of dissent to the small klatch of Kane naysayers. Putting my critical reputation on the line, and bravely standing in a contrary position, I declare the following: Citizen Kane SUCKS.
Trolling has been active for one year. Let’s get to pissing some people off:
Citizen Kane is, to most people, a towering drama, a visually complex masterpiece, and, plainly spoken, a great film. There are hundreds of essays and books and lectures that detail exactly why Citizen Ken deserves to be called the greatest movie of all time (and indeed, I wrote one myself for CraveOnline in the past). But for every 1000 people who say that Kane is peerless, grand, untouchable, the greatest film of all time… there will be one quiet voice who dares to speak the truth: the film is arch, conceited, needlessly complicated, and even boring. Citizen Kane, we may declare, is overrated.
If you haven’t seen it, of course, let me know what you think.
Until next week, let the hate mail flow.
Witney Seibold is a contributor to the CraveOnline Film Channel, and co-host of The B-Movies Podcast. You can read his weekly Trolling articles here on Crave, and follow him on “Twitter” at @WitneySeibold, where he is slowly losing his mind.
Citizen Kane SUCKS
-
The Plot is Predictable
Citizen Kane is staged as a mystery – why did Kane say “Rosebud” right before he died? What did that mean? The problem with this device is that Citizen Kane isn't a very interesting mystery. As the film goes on, the whole “Rosebud” thing is pushed offstage in favor of a more complex character study. Indeed, the “testimonial” aspect of the film – looking at Kane through the eyes of the people who knew him – begins to fall by the wayside. When it's revealed what “Rosebud” is, we have to be reminded that it's significant. Other, bigger issues have obscured the mystery plot.
-
The Ending is Corny
We all know the big twist ending, even if we haven't seen the film, so I'm just going to say it out loud without issuing a spoiler warning: Rosebud was the name of the sled that young Charlie Kane used to ride on as a child. “Rosebud,” then, was a declaration of longing for a cold, cloistered millionaire who couldn't find fulfillment in his vast wealth. Fine. Does that strike anyone else as being slightly corny? Doesn't it read as sentimental, cloyingly nostalgic, and out-of-character for this otherwise complex and dark movie? And what's more, we spend so little time with Charlie as a child, that Kane's childhood nostalgia is almost an afterthought. The film may have been stronger had we never found out what “Rosebud” was, leaving us with a provocative question mark rather than a definite answer.
-
It Only Works for Film Students
Citizen Kane is often called a masterwork in cinematography, employing new camera angles, innovative filming techniques, and creative lighting to make a film that – ultimately – expanded and changed the way movies were made. I will not argue any of these points. I will say, however, that the techniques on display are more interesting to people who study film, and may not – just may not – be readily understandable by your average film-goer who hasn't read several volumes on the history of cinematography. There are some fun shots that anyone can enjoy, but unless you know how some of the shots were achieved, you may not bother to notice that they employed some new, exciting technique. Kane is a film student's wet dream, allowing them to crack off film school terms with excited rapidity. For others – who just wanna watch a movie – well, the techniques have been taken and re-used in so many films since Kane, that they may not read as impressive.
-
It's Conceited
Citizen Kane may be a fictional character study of Charles Foster Kane, but it's pretty well-known to the general public that the film is really a real-life character dissection of infamous newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. There is a definite political agenda to Citizen Kane that may outstrip its function as a story: Orson Welles sought to discredit Hearst's media empire by decrying its ruler as an empty, unknowable vessel of dissatisfaction. And there is a foolish hubris to that, isn't there? Welles was 26 when he made the film, and the political conceits on display are definitely from the mind of a young man. Idealistic, brash, and churlish. Did Welles really think he could bring down a media empire with his little movie? The word of the day is hubris. Kane did eventually come to color the public's views of Hearst, but it did nothing to weaken the Hearst machine.
-
Kane Is Irredeemable
I have heard this complaint often, so I will give it voice: Citizen Kane's central character is a lout. We know at the outset – just through general character introduction – that Kane was horrible. And while there are scenes of Kane as an idealistic young man declaring that he has principals, we know in our hearts – even watching the film for the first time – that Kane is being disingenuous pretty much 100% of the time. And if we see a corrupt man simply becoming more corrupt, only occasionally flirting with redemption, then the story doesn't have an intriguing enough arc. If we had spent more time with “idealistic” Kane, then his fall would have been more interesting, right?
-
It Doesn't Work Without Welles
Picture Humphrey Bogart as Charles Foster Kane. That doesn't quite work. How about Cagney? Close, but I'm still not seeing it. I think Claude Rains would have made an interesting Kane, but I doubt anyone would back me up on this. No. This is Orson Welles' show. I'm not going to criticize Welles' acting – by all measures he's great – but I will make the critical argument that a story cannot be universal if only one actor can play the part. It certainly makes the film unique and striking, but it can also rob from its power if you see it as one man's ego trip, rather than a stirring need to share a story with the world.
