Citizen Kane **½ / 4
This film is regarded by some as the greatest motion picture of all time. Most of these cite their one and only reason as its innovative and influential cinematography. This raises the question: is it just to use the latter as the sole criterion for stamping a film with the "all time best" label? A further question that may be raised: does a movie that is technically brilliant qualify as great without due regard given to its ability to entertain?
Although the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and judging motion pictures is as subjective as it is objective and an art as much as an analysis, I'd like to identify several elements, which are universally considered to make a movie great: the enjoyment one is given by its plot, dialogue / script, musical score, depth of character, solid acting and directing, and cinematography.
In my view, an all time best film must be outstanding in all of these; Citizen Kane was not. Its plot was overtly dull and unsophisticated: reporters review the boring life of an uninteresting man who rose to prosperity. Citizen Kane had no memorable dialogue whatsoever (compare it with "Casablanca" in this department); its script was nothing special. Its musical score was a far cry from the creative genius of someone like Ennio Morricone, Leonard Bernstein, or even John Williams. There was absolutely no depth of character in the film-none that appeared had any heart or appeal. Its acting was only satisfactory. Mind you, the actors did not have very difficult roles to play. Because of this, one could not direct praises towards the director who had an obviously unchallenging job. This leaves cinematography. Influential? Yes. Innovative? Yes. The greatest of all time? No. Even "Touch of Evil", another Orson Welles' classic (and much, much better than Citizen Kane), had far superior black and white photography and use of shadows.
Does all of this mean that Citizen Kane was a bad film? No. Citizen Kane is an average film and, though overall boring, generally deserves a marginal "thumbs up".
This film is regarded by some as the greatest motion picture of all time. Most of these cite their one and only reason as its innovative and influential cinematography. This raises the question: is it just to use the latter as the sole criterion for stamping a film with the "all time best" label? A further question that may be raised: does a movie that is technically brilliant qualify as great without due regard given to its ability to entertain?
Although the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and judging motion pictures is as subjective as it is objective and an art as much as an analysis, I'd like to identify several elements, which are universally considered to make a movie great: the enjoyment one is given by its plot, dialogue / script, musical score, depth of character, solid acting and directing, and cinematography.
In my view, an all time best film must be outstanding in all of these; Citizen Kane was not. Its plot was overtly dull and unsophisticated: reporters review the boring life of an uninteresting man who rose to prosperity. Citizen Kane had no memorable dialogue whatsoever (compare it with "Casablanca" in this department); its script was nothing special. Its musical score was a far cry from the creative genius of someone like Ennio Morricone, Leonard Bernstein, or even John Williams. There was absolutely no depth of character in the film-none that appeared had any heart or appeal. Its acting was only satisfactory. Mind you, the actors did not have very difficult roles to play. Because of this, one could not direct praises towards the director who had an obviously unchallenging job. This leaves cinematography. Influential? Yes. Innovative? Yes. The greatest of all time? No. Even "Touch of Evil", another Orson Welles' classic (and much, much better than Citizen Kane), had far superior black and white photography and use of shadows.
Does all of this mean that Citizen Kane was a bad film? No. Citizen Kane is an average film and, though overall boring, generally deserves a marginal "thumbs up".