Citizen Kane

In the opening of Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane dies as a pathetic sad man babbling about things like “Rosebud.” However, Kane lived an extraordinary life in America’s spotlight. As a tribute to him, Thompson, a news reporter, attempts to find the story behind rosebud. Through the people close to Kane and their interviews, we witness Kane as a boy living a hard life. Coming from a poor family, his parents thought it was best for him to live under Mr. Thatcher’s guidance. Here, he was comforted with the materialistic finer things in life and given financial opportunities. Eventually as a young man, he aspired to open a newspaper and became well-known. He bought out the NY Daily Inquirer and transformed previous newspaper history. Here, he started an empire across the nation. Plus, he got married to his first wife, but things ended dreadfully between them because Kane was accused of being with another woman (eventually his second wife, Susan Alexander). As Thompson digs deeper to try to unearth the rosebud mystery, it is clear that Kane lived a life full of possessions and money, yet he was plagued because he missed the human necessities of life, like love and tenderness.



Citizen Kane, in my opinion, was not the best film ever made. In fact, I would put it only on my top 100 favorite list. For me, a favorite movie has to have a few aspects in it. One, it has to have a lot of character interaction and relationship development. Something I have noticed is that I understand the story better when I understand the characters and their relationships. Normally, I am not interested in the cool graphics and fancy technological features; rather, I am drawn towards the meanings the characters create. Since I am a potential Interpersonal graduate student, it is obvious that I like movies with strong emphasis on relationships. For Citizen Kane, I was not personally attached to him. Although the film is not first person narration, it does revolve around Kane. I mean, he is the title of the movie! However, the film unfolds through others’ perceptions of him. Through a news reporter’s investigation a mysterious keyword, Charles Foster Kane’s life story plays out. Indeed, this part of the film was creative and broke the rules of first person narration, yet, I had a difficult time relating to Kane. Just like any other audience member, I saw him as a distant celebrity in which I was just following his life. It is parallel to the opening of the film through newsmarch, where the audience has a reader’s digest preview, but just like the audience watches the news, it seems somehow fake. I am not sure of how to exactly describe it, but it is almost as if the person is less human when they are portrayed in the news, close to an out of body experience (this could also relate to how I have been trained to idolize people in the news). For whatever the exact reason, I like films in which I can perceive the world through the main character’s eyes and in Citizen Kane, it was somewhat difficult to have an instant connection and understanding. Again, a big reason this film is not under my top 10 list is for the very reason that makes it creative and probably more well-liked: lack of first person narration.


A second reason this film is not the greatest film, not even top 10, would be the fact that it is in black and white. I know, there could be a debate about this and I probably should not not like a movie just because the technology was not up to date. For me, my eyes sometimes go bonkers when I watch a movie in black and white. Yes, I do think it is somewhat romantically reminiscent of older times; still, I don’t enjoy them as much. (Goodness, I hope this secret does not fail me out of film class!)

Despite the reasons that I do not think this film is the greatest of all time, I can see how other people (probably ones that appreciate black and white) do think this. For one, this film has innovative filming techniques. Orson Welles, actor and director, created a film that was like none other. A few scenes that stick out in my memory as brilliant technique would be the scene with the front shot of Susan Alexander (second wife)’s opera debut and the same scene, but from behind following the back shot, the shot with the Chronicle editors in the front window and then the actual photo shoot, the continuing sled prop shot (it shows him playing in the snow by himself, then when he was “sold,” then how he hates a lonely Christmas and his new life), the shot with Kane celebrating with the dancing girls in the window because it shows how he is omnipresent with his company, and finally the shot with Kane and Susan in Xanadu when they are standing about 50 feet away from each other in an empty massive room. These shots not only establish high-quality techniques, but also help the plot along. It makes sense that Susan and Kane were unhappy and had intimacy issues when they stand what seems to be a football field away from each other.

Overall, this movie can peak both film critics/students/buffs and also the average audience member. For myself, I have never seen this movie, nor did I know the ending of Rosebud or really have any expectations for it, and I would definitely watch it again. This movie deserves a second chance because there are minuscule details that I missed the first time around. It may not be the greatest movie ever made, but it is great and made well.

note: Is there some motiff with glass doors, windows, and mirrors in this movie? There seems to be a lot of them!

Film Noir?

What is film noir?

Unfortunately and much to my demise, there is a not a clear cut answer to this. This is a difficult question because there are debates on how to categorize it. Technically, Corrigan (2009) understands genre as coming “from its root, meaning ‘kind.’ It is a category of classification of a group of movies in which the individual films share similar subject matter and similar ways of organizing the subject through narrative and stylistic patterns” (Corrigan 2009 p.332). So, if film noir has to have similar subject matter, and organization of narrative and style to be a genre, it has to have some sort of guidelines to follow. To further complicate this complex query, film noir usually means that they do not follow the previously establish film rules, like lighting or clear moral characters. Instead, an aspect of film noir is to be slightly avant garde with the production. From my perspective, there is usually an unique aspect that sets it apart from previous made films. So, how can film noir be a genre if there has to be a ‘broken-rule’ in it along with a similar organization of subject matter and stylistic patterns?


Stumped? Me too! On one hand, how can these movies be in a similar category when they include an innovative feature and develop a new format? If it is always changing, it cannot be placed in the same genre. However, how can film noir movies not be in a similar category? To better comprehend what I am talking about, I am making a phrase, ‘old Hollywood era film noir’ which specifically targets movies from the 1940s-1960’s, usually black and white, based around a violent act and some sort of investigation of the criminal. It was easy for me to make somewhat of a list of film noir movies that other genres do not cover. Yet, I am stumped with anything past the 1960’s. From there, I have a difficult time differentiating between film noir and just a bizarre avant garde film.


After much thought and weighing of the two sides of the argument, I do not have an answer. I wish it was a simple answer, but it is not because it is not a simple question! I would like to say that film noir is a genre with the old Hollywood era, yet it morphs into a new face which does not seem to be film noir. My conclusion is disappointing because I do not have much of a conclusion, just that film noir could be subjective and puzzling.