Throughout the duration of Citizen Kane, I found myself to be detached from the film; I was not entirely sure as to what the purpose of it was. Considered as one of the most influential films of all time, I felt wrong for not enjoying or fully understanding the depth of the movie.
After concluding the film, I decided to read and watch some analytical video essays regarding the film, since I felt as if I was missing something. One of the lines that stood out most to me in one of these videos was the following:
“Though a box-office failure upon its release, Citizen Kane has been canonized as one of the most important films ever made. The name itself has become synonymous with greatness.”
1941: Citizen Kane: What Makes A Masterpiece?
After taking some time to grasp certain details about this film, I understood why so many regarded this film as such a “masterpiece.”
Citizen Kane tells the story of Charles Foster Kane, from his rise to power until his eventual doom. However, the story is told following Kane’s death, through a reporter’s investigation of the meaning of his dying word, “Rosebud.” As the film progresses, the audience learns about the meaning of this word through the final shot of the “Rosebud” sled burning, which symbolizes the loss of his childhood innocence.
However, what truly makes Citizen Kane a masterpiece is its complex narrative and nonlinear structure; the cinematography and editing was also phenomenal and ahead of its time. Orson Welles presents the story through a series of flashbacks (part of the films’ editing techniques) which piece together the different parts of Kane’s life. However, these flashbacks occur through a nonlinear structure, causing the audience to feel immersed in this mystery of finding the meaning of his dying word. This non-chronological structure was groundbreaking at its time, since most older films typically followed a linear, orderly structure.
One of the most important cinematographic aspects of the film is its renowned use of deep focus. Again, as stated in the video linked above, older films typically used “different focal lengths to separate characters from the background or to draw the audience’s eye to a particular detail.” Meanwhile, Citizen Kane presented a crystal clear image of everything occurring on the screen, showing every side of the story. Moreover, low-angle shows are used throughout the entirety of Kane’s story, seemingly portraying him as an important figure, reflecting his rise to power.
Figure 1: The use of deep-focus in this scene shows a multilayered story
- Kane’s mother filling in the paperwork that let Kane under Thatcher’s custody
- Kane’s father fighting to keep his son, though eventually giving in to it
- Kane playing outside, unaware that he was fated with the loss of his childhood innocence
Citizen Kane was also a landmark in terms of film editing, using techniques such as flashbacks, montages, and manipulations of space and time. For instance, the scene where Kane and Emily are having breakfast is portrayed through a montage, in which we see the growing distance between them over the years, shown within a few minutes. Additionally, as aforementioned, flashbacks are used throughout the duration of the film to portray Kane’s life, and these flashbacks are smoothly dissolved and transitioned, allowing the audience to understand when the film is focusing on current events, or past events within Kane’s story.
Though I did not enjoy the film from a first view, it would be impossible to not acknowledge that it truly is a masterpiece for its time. Regardless of my initial opinions, I do believe that Citizen Kane is a phenomenal film that shaped the course of cinema.
Hi Lester,
I really enjoyed reading about your view of Citizen Kane for the first time! I actually had a similar experience also as a first time watcher. Being a complex film it is really hard to understand for the first time especially what the overall purpose of the film was. Although what you mentioned in the techniques and non linear story line also really stuck out to me. Especially how it kind of emphasized how different perspectives can view a person. Hearing from multiple different perspectives we got to see and learn everything we needed to know about the character Charles and how he was perceived. Especially what caught my interest was Susan Alexander and Charles Kanes’ relationship and how overtime it became worse and worse until it cracked. I thought the way they cut back to this relationship with the use of flashbacks showed how Charles was overly obsessed with power even in with the people whom he loved the most. Another thing you pointed out that I found interesting was the use of deep focus and how that emphasized every tiny detail. I agree and actually did notice that throughout the film. Us as viewers, really got immersed in the story and made the mystery more compelling, as there wasn’t a central pull of focus. Everything was to be analyzed and I also think this made the Film a phenomenal film for its time.
Hi Lester,
I had a similar experience as well, not really understanding what the purpose of the film was. It made it worse that I watched it with my boyfriend who took FILM 101 last semester and was raving about how awesome this film was as I struggled to understand what was even really going on! I really enjoyed the non-linear structure of the flashbacks, because I found that they felt authentic. When I think of a person, I don’t think of my memories with them in a chronological order- I think about them in a non-linear, complex order that eventually sum up to make the person who I think they are. The use of deep focus was also one of my favorites in this movie, as you said it really helped tell so many layers within a single frame. The figure you provided was a great example of this, how if you take a moment to really look u can unlock so many different aspects of the story from a single frame. This to me made the film, as it got me very immersed trying to not miss any details.
I thought your analysis of narrative and cinematography were particularly informative explaining the structure of Citizen Kane. Similar to how multiple nonlinear perspectives are employed to tell Kane’s story, the use of deep focus complicates the idea of a singular narrative with a director guided focal point. As you mention, the whole film is structured around the meaning of “rosebud,” Kane’s final word, but there is no distinct structure to the story beyond events in Kane’s life. For shots like the window scene, deep focus detracts from a singular perspective and reminds the viewer the individuality of each narrator. Kane’s parents are central to the shot as they discuss transferring custody of their son to Thatcher, but Kane is noticeably in focus outside the houses window and main action from the shot. This style of narration is truer to reality in which every narrator is their own person reacting to events, not designed purely for the story’s plot. While I also was a little confused by the meaning of the film taking a more holistic approach to the events in the story I was definitely able to understand and appreciate the film as a groundbreaking masterpiece especially for its time.
I thought that your insight into deep focus was something that I also found prominent and interesting within the film. The shot within the house was one of the most intriguing to me because in class we have discussed so much about the filmmaker guiding the viewer’s eyes, but here I found myself split between both the interaction with the parents and a young Kane playing in the background. I agree with you and think the way that the non-linear storytelling is used makes the movie so unique and keeps us enthralled in Kane’s life. Though sometimes I questioned why each section was told from a different character’s perspective, even though the camera positioning did not make it as though we were in one person’s or another’s shoes. However the usage of different perspectives made the movie so much more interesting, keeping me hooked; although not each person was adding something new to the quest for rosebud, each person gave us new insight into Kane’s life which I think was the most interesting part of the narrative structure. I also think another aspect that makes Citizen Kane so interesting was that Rosebud in the end did not really matter, defying the way a typical narrative would function. The very thing that the reporters were chasing the whole movie, ended up not even really mattering, however I still felt that using Rosebud as a way to keep viewers motivated was effective.