Film: Citizen Kane

You generally wouldn’t disagree after watching that this film is a classic, but if I’d been asked about why is it really great, I’d have to admit it may not be really great on its own. The story is interesting, the picture is fantastic, the director did a good work, and the protagonist is eccentric; it’s good to watch, especially if a previously unknown era fascinates you, but deprived of its sensational features – not as if a film should be judged without its best features – it appears there wouldn't remain much to talk about. It all seems superficial; no great characters, no deepness of any kind, not even in portrayal – almost as if it wasn’t really intended to be a movie. Hence it may be a tool of expression. Citizen Kane is, after all, a story about a business magnate who raced Pulitzer with sensationalism which thus rightfully pervades the whole movie, and that seems to be completely intentional. Even the plot is driven by a gimmick that neither makes any sense in the film, nor it is really supposed to reveal anything relevant (as admitted also by the reporter in the end). Implying that last words like ‘rosebud’ could summarize Kane’s life and resolve an essential mystery of it ultimately turns the film into an odd parody of yellow journalism and its practitioners (it could have, of course, happened in reality, but it doesn’t make the display of subtle ridiculousity any worse).

Kane is depicted a flawed personality, perhaps due to his parents’ curious decision: since they suddenly got rich, they decided to leave their son’s education to a bank, so he would be able to use his money well when he grows up – further suggesting that what Kane does must be a work of a sick person.