In his mansion called Xanadu, journalism tycoon Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) dies, uttering only the word "Rosebud". A reporter, played by William Alland, embarks on a journey to discover the meaning of this word and interviews people who were, at different points in time, close to him.
We discover that, when Kane was only eight, after his parents discovered that they owned gold, they authorised a banker to become his guardian. At twenty-five, he gained control of his possessions and started investing in journalism. After decades of successes came decades of failures, both public and private. In his final years, he was alone, without deep human connections.
The different characters we meet throughout the film reveal their starkly opposing views of the protagonist. For some, he was a saint, for others, a devil. Everyone had an opinion of him, but no one agreed on how to define him. Was he just a cynical newspaper-owner or did he have the people's interests in mind? Did he love his two wives or were his actions mostly selfish? The film does not give any answer and while we, as the audience, will love to discuss Kane's personality, deep down we know there is no definitive answer.
Even the reporter we're following throughout the story, after being given only very little information about Rosebud, understands that a single word cannot explain a man's whole life. The mystery is irresolved and the reporters leave. While the camera pans over the hundreds of objects he owned, the sled with which Kane was playing when he was taken away from his home is thrown in the fire. Through the flames, its name becomes visible: "Rosebud".
With his sled burnt, no one will ever be able to discover this side of Charles Foster Kane, as the penultimate shots (which references one of the first ones in the film) tells us: "No trespassing".
Lead actor and director Orson Welles is incredibly capable, at only twenty-five years old, of portraying different versions of our protagonist: the somewhat self-satisfied smug millionaire, the heartbroken husband and the melancholic old man.
It's hard to judge a film like "Citizen Kane", one that is regarded by many as the best film in history. On one hand, it was a revolutionary feat in storytelling, which synthesised all advancement in filmmaking in the previous fifty years, while influencing cinema even today. On the other, eighty years have passed and cinematic technique has inevitably evolved over time. Still, it would be unfair to judge it as "good for its time", as there was no single point in which I found myself forgiving some aspects of the film because of the period in which it was produced.
Ultimately, it was a fascinating, mostly entertaining experience, which should be appreciated both as such and for its huge impact. If you want to know more about the history of cinema, this is a must-watch (but, to be fair, you probably have already watched it). If, on the other hand, you're just interested in watching something good, this is still a good choice. You don't need to know about the role this movie played in history to appreciate its compelling story, but if you do, that's better for you.
0 out of 1 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends