Classic movie remains true milestone

‘Citizen Kane’ fully deserving of praise, status as cultural icon

Kolby Harvey - harveykb@plu.edu

mast a&e reporter

For this issue, I decided not to review a recent movie, but rather to go back to basics. That is to say, I wanted to take a look at a classic I had not seen in quite some time. This particular film is one that is at the top of countless critics’ top 100 lists, a colossal triumph that was nearly destroyed before its lackluster release and subsequent showing in but a handful of theaters. The film that I wanted to revisit was none other than Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane.”

Hailed as the greatest film ever made by many and topping the American Film Institute’s “100 Greatest American Movies of All Time” list, “Citizen Kane” is one of the first films that comes to mind when I think of the classics. Despite my own personal affection for the movie, I recently wondered if it truly deserved its reputation among critics. In hopes of answering this query, I sat down this weekend with my DVD copy of “Kane” and found that, yes, it really does live up to the hype.

What makes “Citizen Kane” noteworthy in my book is the multitude of levels on which the film works, the first being technical. In terms of editing, sound, cinematography and the general look of the film, “Kane” was decades ahead of its time. The transitions from scene to scene are nearly flawless, and the film moves like a well-oiled machine.

The oft-copied plot structure of “Citizen Kane” is a captivating and engaging look at both the rise and fall of a self-made, American man, as well as a critique of real-life media mogul William Randolph Hearst. In fact, “Kane” is one of the most enjoyable of the great films of the last 100 years.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of “Citizen Kane” is the way in which the fall of its title character ultimately was more reflective of director Orson Welles than its intended target, William Randolph Hearst. The unstable, “would-be genius,” as he was referred to in Hearst newspapers, experienced a remarkably similar fall from grace as the figure of his sole cinematic success.

Whereas Welles’ true-life adversary, Hearst, enjoyed the success his money afforded him, Welles himself, having lost his battle with the media tycoon, spent the rest of his life in cinematic obscurity, taking what bit parts he could. What began as a critique of one of the most influential men of the time, somehow transformed into a forecast of its creator’s future.

History aside, the story of “Citizen Kane” stands on its own and is successful in enticing viewers with no knowledge of the struggle between Hearst and Welles.

Historical background only enhances the film, especially when it can be seen, at least to a certain extent, as Orson Welles predicting his own demise. Hearst, Welles and the fictional Charles Foster Kane, all self-made men in their own right, show us threefold that success and power are anything but permanent, and that tangible achievements do not necessarily fulfill us as human beings.