Citizen...?

In 1995 the film Braveheart was released in theaters. Mel Gibson played the lead character, William Wallace, and also produced and directed the film. Critics described Gibson's performance as strong and said his direction was exciting. Braveheart was action packed with camera shots like close ups, long shots and direct shots. These shots increased the intensity of the epic war movie. It also followed, pretty well, the points of a story arc which for some is a sure fire way to structure a story making for the best possible recipe to engage an audience. Braveheart was a great movie by that held your attention from beginning to end. As great as Braveheart was it is really important to think about all that had already happened in the land of film making. Films like JAWS and Star Wars had given movie goers thrills above and beyond their imaginations. Mel Gibson had all the pioneers behind him in that their work was there for him to study and learn from.

 But if a film, along the lines of Braveheart had come out in 1941, a full 50 years before Braveheart, how much more impressive would it be? Insert here the movie that has been described as "the world's most famous and highly rated film with its many remarkable scenes and performances, cinematic and narrative techniques, and experimental innovations":Citizen Kane. Consider that there was a young twenty something year old man who wrote, directed, produced and starred in a film that included some of the same exciting elements of a story arc and scene shots in 1941 when film was still in its age of discovery according to some. Citizen Kane might have been the equivalent of the great leap for mankind in the history of movie making. In 1895 employees were leaving and exiting the factory in Louis Lumiere's movie, a very basic scene more voyeuristic in nature and lacking depth and scope and sound. There were no characters to grab hold of or identify with, just employees in general. That would be the perspective of movies for quite some time and one that audiences would also get bored with watching. Some advances were indeed happening but then Orson Welles in his own ignorance as he describes himself in an interview doesn't realize the limitations that he is bound by and blows all of the boundaries that have been set along with his cinematographer Greg Toland and they put together a movie using everything that has been tried and then some. Citizen Kane is relevant then and now. It is timeless which lends to its brilliance. Brian Truitt of USA Today titles an article "Citizen Kane is the greatest movie you've probably never seen" because many have heard but never actually watched. The fame of the movie has even transcended the need to watch it. It is just become a given for those who claim to "know" film. For those who take time to watch it will find that all the hype is true. The narration style which puts it technically in the film noir category, element of mystery, character depth, story line and innovations like deep focus and chiaroscuro lend to a film that was ahead of its time. The real reminder of the age of the movie is the fashion and then of course it is in black and white. The worse part of the film although understanding the choice is the loud voice over narration which is simpler a matter of personal choice.

Citizen Kane is a story with a clear plot. It's characters develop and change. There is an amazing back story as the movie opens with the death of Charles Foster Kane. With flashback scenes that follow as the movie pieces together the grandeur of this dead man's life you might forget that he is dead. As the reporters attempt to put humanity to a news story by researching Kane's last words "Rosebud", there are scenes ranging from his childhood with his parents and his failed marriages. The attempt to understand who this larger than life force is the driving force in the film. "Citizen Kane with its brilliant cast and crew forever changed American film" hailed the Old Hollywood Films blogger Amanda Garrett. Braveheart will never get to boast that claim.