Watching Citizen Kane on DVD
Filed under: Warner Brothers, DVD Reviews
My wife is slated to teach a film course at the high school level in the Fall, but had never seen one of the films she must teach, so this afternoon, we both sat down to watch ... Citizen Kane. I've always appreciated the film for the pillar in film history that it represents, its impressive shots, artfulness, and its narrative structure, but on a very base level of enjoyment, I've never really liked this "greatest film of all time." I'd much prefer to spend my time watching Jaws. As a literature-groomed person, Citizen Kane reads more like a book than a film with me, and that's not just a response to its length.
I like Jerry's probing presence as a man mostly in the shadows, playing with and trying to put together the jigsaw puzzle that is Kane's life. I like the hard focus from here to infinity. The scale is impressive. I even like large sections of the story-line and the dialogue. But then there are all the odd bits of stock footage at the beginning of the film. Strange appearances like the clearly fake octopus in the newsreel section and the cockatoo who shrieks in the cross-fade at the beginning of the scene when Susan leaves Kane and he destroys her room. These odd bits usually wouldn't be enough to turn me off of a film, yet I don't tend to enjoy Citizen Kane as a whole, despite helping to teach it in a college classroom in the past, and usually being quick to argue that it is one of the best movies of all time. Personal taste differs from appreciation of art, afterall.
Because of my stance on the movie, I was surprised that Kristin, my wife, liked the movie so much watching it on DVD this afternoon. I've tried to make her watch other, lesser films in the past that I consider very artful important films, and she's often become bored and uninterested with the films early on, as her tastes lean towards movies like The Goonies, or anything starring Kurt Russell. But, she liked Citizen Kane, despite a few complaints about it being too long. Several of the shots impressed her. She liked it when Susan is crouched on the floor and Kane's shadow engulfs her as he towers over her telling her exactly what she'll do with her music career. By the end, when we, the audience, discover the mystery that eluded Jerry despite all his probing questions, when the identity of Rosebud is revealed, she turned to me and commented: "I like movies that if they have a question, they answer it.... I can't believe you don't like it. I think it is a really good movie." I guess it really is.
Credits Report: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Discuss: From Big Screens to Boob Tubes
Harrison Ford Returning for 'Indiana Jones 5'?
A Trailer for Gyllenhaal and Maguire's 'Brothers'
Ron Weaseley Has Swine Flu
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
7-15-2005 @ 8:54PM
mcf said...
Plus, Joseph Cotten, one of the most under appreciated, unfairly neglected actors of all time. (Ok, that might be a bit excessive, but he's pretty great when he's in good movies like Kane.)
Reply
7-15-2005 @ 11:52PM
Jason Scott said...
"la la la la contrarian opinion la la la la"
Send me your DVD when you're done with it.
Reply
7-16-2005 @ 12:08AM
C.K. Sample, III said...
Well, considering that both me and my wife will be teaching from the DVD in the future, I won't be done with it for many years. Also, I think my assessment of the film is too mixed to be labeled as flat out contrarian, although I'd be interested in hearing some expansion of your "la la la la contrarian opinion la la la la" response to my post.
Reply
7-16-2005 @ 10:22AM
Jon WIlk said...
C.K.-
Not sure how tight your schedule is in the class, but Citizen Kane's special edition DVD has probably the best extra documentary I've ever seen. Orson Welles life is really interesting, and the controversy surrounding Citizen Kane is explained well.
Reply
7-16-2005 @ 11:38AM
C.K. Sample, III said...
Jon,
That's the DVD we have, but I haven't had a chance to watch the documentary yet. I will though, and most likely I'll post my response to watching it here too. Although, the schedule is a bit tight this weekend. Might not trickle out until next weekend.
Reply
7-16-2005 @ 12:14PM
Nick said...
It's absurd that someone who has never bothered to watch the film that is called the greatest ever made more often than any other would dare to teach a film class, even at the high school level. I don't particularly like the film myself; but what does it say about your wife's seriousness and curiosity that she's never simply walked into a Blockbuster and rented Citizen Kane? I hope she'll simply focus on her core interests, "The Goonies, or anything starring Kurt Russell." Young lives may be changed. Perhaps you could even join her in class one day, reprising your old role, which you mentioned, of praising a heralded film to the skies while keeping quiet your basic dislike of it.
Thank God I'm not in school anymore.
Reply
7-16-2005 @ 12:23PM
C.K. Sample, III said...
Whoa, Nick. Turn down the harshness on my wife. This will be the first time that she'll be teaching this class, and that is exactly why we sat down to watch it the other day: because she wants to make sure that she gets to know the film well-enough to teach it in the Fall. I mean, it's her summer off time and she's already prepping. I don't think that is by any means shirking educational responsibility or indicative of a failing education system, both of which are implied by your comment, but rather quite the opposite.
Reply
7-16-2005 @ 1:34PM
Robert Taylor said...
I agree with Nick it says a great deal about the teaching profession, first of all there is a highschool class that covers film and then that the teacher is basically one page ahead of the students. Citizen Kane is a great movie. At the very least I hope the teacher watches the movie with the Ebert commentary. Oh well good luck to the kids.
Reply
7-16-2005 @ 1:42PM
C.K. Sample, III said...
The film class is a history of film class that is being taught as a senior elective through an English Department. I think you are misjudging it somewhat unfairly here, Robert and Nick. It isn't meant to be the same sort of creature that someone would study when attending a college film course. This is the very basic beginning looks at film: teaching them a basic timeline history, highlighting the major innovations technically, and introducing to the mechanics of different shots, montage, and film narrative.
Also: the Ebert commentary? I really think if you're fouling this course for being "behind" on the academics, that you'd point the kids to something more primary, like Braudy and Cohen's Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, rather than Ebert, who is good, but more of a secondary and usually much more geared to "Thumbs up / Thumbs down" critic than someone like Andre Bazin.
Reply
7-16-2005 @ 2:07PM
C.K. Sample, III said...
Also, Nick said: "Perhaps you could even join her in class one day, reprising your old role, which you mentioned, of praising a heralded film to the skies while keeping quiet your basic dislike of it."
I never said I keep my dislike of the film quiet. I say, "I don't particularly enjoy watching this film, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a great film for the reasons we will be discussing...." blah blah blah.
Reply
7-17-2005 @ 12:53AM
Gilbert Davis said...
A couple of things. I'm not too disturbed by the fact that they have unqualified people teaching a film class in High School as much as I'm disturbed that they would even have a film class in High School. It's not exactly a preparation for College or life kind of class. And I'd hate to have a paper graded on a subject the teacher had only just become acquainted with a day before I had. So I agree with Nick and with Robert on that matter.
As for Citizen Kane, it's a 1940's movie. If you are having trouble with the fact that they use stock footage and that the octopus looks 'fake' then that tells me you're not quite wrapping your mind around the fact that the movie is from the 1940's. That's like saying you couldn't quite suspend your disbelief in Casablanca because the plane at the end of the movie looked fake. It's like saying you couldn't wrap your head around Pride of the Yankess because when Gary Cooper gave the 'Luckiest Man on the Face of the Earth' speech the crowd scene behind him was obviously projected on the back of a screen. Those 'odd bits' where the limitations of the craft at the time.
Citizen Kane deserves it's place as one of the best movies of all time. Sure it has ceilings, it has a political message, a sidelong attack on a powerful person, Sure,it rewards the patience of the viewer by answering the question about what Rosebud is. It gives you the aha! moment, the payoff. The message of the story hits you as you're watching that sled burn and you sit there almost involuntarily thinking about the meaning of life and the meaning and price of success. A great movie.
Reply
7-17-2005 @ 2:15AM
Sean McCarthy said...
1.) "Citizen Kane" is a Roman a clef, and therefore not altogether eligible for consideration as a great work of art. Art is defined by its distance from the details, and by its proximity to the essence, of real life. The more something is fabricated from whole cloth, the more properly it may be called art.
Welles' film is simply TOO ACCURATE as a depiction of W. R. Hearst. And because it has that basis, because it derives its story from actual events, the required element of raw creativity just isn't there.
In the end, Kane is a very well photographed scandal sheet about a very famous scandal sheet monger.
2.) Presumably, one of the reasons why this film is so adamantly over-rated, is because it represents the triumph of visual media over the entrenched power of print. At 10,000 words per picture, Hearst could not muster enough ink to contradict it.
Reply
7-17-2005 @ 8:06AM
Dip Slovak said...
Why should I bother with Cinematical ever again when you don't get CITIZEN KANE FFS. Far out (that's short for F*ck by the way), do you get ANYTHING - AT ALL?
Man I'm glad i don't pay for your "service".
Sorry if feelings are hurt,
DS
Reply
7-17-2005 @ 9:57AM
C.K. Sample, III said...
Man, everyone is misreading me here. My comment was that I don't enjoy watching Citizen Kane, at a very basic enjoyment-factor level, and that's the perspective from which I launched my review. It's a blog post about a film. Not a formal treatise on the greatness that is Citizen Kane. I do appreciate this film. However, given 2 hours to spare, there are many films I would rather watch (for the record, I've watched Citizen Kane over 15 times).
Gilbert, I'm not sure if you know this about the film, but the reason there is so much stock footage in the film has less to do with it being a 1940s film, than it has to do with Orson Welles receiving carte blanche access to whatever he wanted from the studio in making the film, as they gave him the sweetest deal imaginable after the success / mistaken-for-reality-ness of War of the Worlds. This is also why it is one of the greatest films of all time: because it is a movie whose director has a carte blanche ticket to do whatever he wants. That doesn't happen any more (except for Independent projects which are often hindered by lack of the bankroll, so it becomes either do what you want and be tied down by lack of funds or make your movie, but make the adjustments they want, or stick it in the framework they want, because they are bankrolling it.
Also, back to the teaching Film in high school. For the fourth or fifth time: it's less about teaching "film" than it is teaching the students all the same things they learn in a literature course, only applied visually. It's taught in an English Department. These kids benefit in that they learn how to read visual queues in media, rather than just being fed advertisements all day long without being aware of them; the kids are usually from rather sheltered spheres of influence, many of them living on the same block for their entire lives, so the class has the possibility of broadening their cultural awareness; and then there's the whole plot, character, narrative pattern, etc parts that they need to learn anyway.
Now can anyone else who clearly has no experience whatsoever teaching please feel free to critique the teaching of film in High School some more?
Reply
7-17-2005 @ 10:30AM
C.K. Sample, III said...
Sean, good points.
Dip, I, for one, would be overjoyed if you took your trollish, unwanted negativity, and plagued some other website with your rudeness. ;-)
Reply
7-17-2005 @ 4:13PM
Sean McCarthy said...
It's a little telling that the protectors of "Citizen Kane" do not actually have much to say about the film itself...what they have instead, is an hysterical determination to shout down any suggestion that it might be even slightly over-rated.
When I like a film, I can't shut up about it. I'll recite the script, describe scene after scene, breathlessly discuss it's meaning and message...all in a tone of happy excitement. Rarely do I walk out of a theater, saying:
"Wow, that was great! Now, let's go ferret out anyone who didn't think so, and denounce them. This movie deserves to be praised in the same way that the Spanish Inquisition 'glorified' god."
It seems C.K. and I have something in common with the keeper's of Kane's legacy...we didn't enjoy it, and what they feel for it cannot be called "joy".
Reply
7-18-2005 @ 2:33AM
Gilbert Davis said...
Sir,
I don't know that you can say everyone is misreading you if everyone, or at least everyone who is taking the time to reply, has similar reactions. Perhaps our collective interpretations of what you wrote means you didn't clearly write what you intended to write. Or as Andre the Giant once said, "I do not think that means what you think it means." (to paraphrase)
First of all, and in light of the rude commment above, I don't feel hysterical nor do I feel like a protector of the movie Citizen Kane. What anybody personally likes is their own business. It's silly to feel superior or inferior to what somebody else likes or thinks is important. And anyone who gets angry about it needs to have their medications readjusted. I can only speak for myself but I'm expressing opinions and not personal attacks.
Ok, now I know you said that the movie isn't your favorite movie to watch. You'd rather watch Jaws. Cool, great. Citizen Kane isn't a movie I've got on tip of my DVD player to watch every week either. And I hate Jaws - you know, personal opinion and all of that. Ah but then the next paragraphy you mention what's good about it then go on about stock film footage. I'm looking to read some criticism about the movie and there's none really. You'd have been better off just saying you don't like it and there's no real reason why that you can identify. Since you didn't identify anything I thought 'stock footage? fake octopus?' As a teacher I'd put a red circle around it with a question mark and ask you to rewrite it coherently. At least take out that sentence about birds and rubber ocean creatures.
Now you said "Now can anyone else who clearly has no experience whatsoever teaching please feel free to critique the teaching of film in High School some more?"
Happy to. And while I'm not a teacher, I did spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express. You know, when visiting my son who is a straight A double E Engineer major at a major University I stay at a Holiday Inn Express. I've spent years involved in his schooling. PTA, PTO President, Secretary, worked in class with kids for years, the whole thing. We bought computers for schools, supplies for kids that didn't have them and did the best we could. I remember fighting with teachers who wanted to put my son in special education classes because he had a slight stutter. He came to Kindergarten being able to read and write and at a third grade level because we worked on it and I taught him. Met every teacher he ever had. Communicated with every teacher about what they were teaching and made sure they were teaching my son. No film classes allowed, college prep and college level. Straight A's, IB diploma, full scholarship. But most of the kids in the schools are there marking time and the teachers and school administrations have given up on them a long time ago. That's what I object to and what I find tragic. Math, Science, English, - too hard, can't engage the kids. So we give up and give them Film classes. Now, of course I am not a teacher so I can't possibly be qualified to have an opinion on teaching film to kids in school but I can tell you that if I left it to the judgement of the teachers and schools I've worked with then my son wouldn't be in the position he's in now with a future. That's my opinion.
Reply
7-18-2005 @ 9:51AM
C.K. Sample, III said...
Everyone who is misreading me is 3 people so far. You're focusing on the negative in the second paragraph. There is praise there too. It's a mixed bag, which is the reason I feel the way I feel about Citizen Kane.
Now back to the education discussion. You say: "But most of the kids in the schools are there marking time and the teachers and school administrations have given up on them a long time ago. That's what I object to and what I find tragic. Math, Science, English, - too hard, can't engage the kids. So we give up and give them Film classes."
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding this film class, so here's my final attempt to explain. In preparation for college classes, English classes' primary goals are: to develop Writing Skills, Cultural Literacy, and Critical Thinking. A Film class, done properly (not by any of the "we've given up on the education system" posers that you keep erroneously associating my wife and I with simply because I mentioned the words 'film' and 'class' together) covers all three of these and can do them well, as there's usually less work in getting the kids to plug into the films to start with. We stress "these are the mechanics of film, the way the director is manipulating the narrative, the way that this shot communicates something beyond what's going on in the film." So we equip them to critically read the films. Then we have them write detailed responses to the films. I also think films are important bits of cultural literacy, especially with films like Citizen Kane where you can tie in a mini-history lesson about the newspaper industry in early 20th Century America.
When novels first came out (which historically wasn't that long ago) everyone thought that they were trash, not worthy of that big L'ed Literature. Now many people consider novels the predominant literary form. Film is a newer narrative artistic form and I think your worry about it being taught in school is because you are thinking about it as something lesser, when in fact it is the latest evolvement of storytelling beyond black words on white paper.
Reply
7-18-2005 @ 10:39AM
B said...
I don't know if I'm qualified to jump in this conversation, since I didn't stay in a holiday inn express last night, but I think it's pretty cool that your wife is teaching film history to high school students, and Citizen Kane is the default place to start any film history class. By the way, the Ebert commentary on the DVD might be a good way to start the class, he goes into details on how the film was made, the technical aspects of a lot of the scenes, problems with Hearst and the historical context of the movie, very interesting stuff. However, I agree that Citizen Kane's position as "the greatest film of all time" is kind of suspicious. The movie was an incredible technical achivement, and the acting performances, espicially Wells and Cotten, are nothing short of amazing. However, the story itself is kind of lame, although the way it unfolds keeps the story from getting boring. Personally, I thought the Third Man was better, although if I had to choose between Citizen Kane and Jaws, I'd take Citizen Kane. Just out of curiousity, what movies are next on the list for the class?
Reply
7-18-2005 @ 11:44AM
karina said...
Gilbert, do you really believe that your son has "a future" because you *wouldn't let him learn about movies*? If you really believe that, please break it down for me a little bit more, because I sure as hell don't understand.
Reply