Citizen Kane: and why it makes me uneasy about the film ‘industry.’
iView Author: scriptlarva (New Delhi, India)
Email: turn360degree[at] hotmail [dot] com
Citizen Kane: and why it makes me uneasy about the film ‘industry.’
I didn’t think that Citizen Kane could live upto the hype. No: 1 movie in so many ‘best 100 films’ lists, including that of American and British Film Institutes- well, overexpectations always rigs the returns.
But here I was pleasantly surprised.
After beginning with the last moments of Kane uttering the word ‘rosebud,’ what we see is a documentary on Kane’s life for the next 10 minutes. All the major twists and turns in the news paper tycoon’s eventful life is laid open before you in that 10 minutes.
Here is the tricky part. Now we know the basic trajectory of Kane’s life. But as a journalist sets off to find out what this ‘rose bud’ is,we walk through the same roads again. The journalist meets with different players in Kane’s life, who illuminate different times and aspects of his life. His banker, second wife, friend turned critic, butler and so on. The most brilliant part of the script is that none of them continue the story where the other one has left it off. (Which is what usually happens when we try to write the story of a person from flashbacks/ others’ memories). Every person’s recollection is discrete, starting with beginning of their relationship (when Kane was young) and to the end/final point of the relationship(when Kane is old). Then the next person begins from a different earlier point. Still movie maintains the dramatic structure of an unfolding story.
What comes out of those independent sketches is the picture of a man who was idealistic but a megalomaniac. Warm but hot headed. Intelligent but rash. Successful but alone. Altruistic and narcissistic.
In the words of a journalist ’some one who had it all before losing it all.’ Worshipping or demonising Kane would be easier rather than understanding him. You realise that truth is something labyrinthine that any attempt to dissect it out will only kill it.
Journalist fails to find what ‘rose bud’ means. But we do before the movie ends. And in that moment Kane does touch your heart.
A real good piece of art moves you in an emotional manner even before you intellectualises about the art of it. Its true with ‘Citizen Kane’ also.
But what I wanted to really talk about is the creator of that art- Orson Welles, the co- writer, director and actor of the film. And also about the fact that though he directed many other movies, he was never given complete creative freedom on any other movie until his death in 1985.
One reason for that? Citizen Kane didnt make enough money at the box office. And also that his vision was too radical and chaotic (in commercial terms) for the studios.
Orson Welles was 25 when he made Citizen Kane. So the question naturally arise. If Welles was left alone to make his own kind of movies, what else would we have got? ( Agreed, his other movies are also considered very good even after the extensive cutting, reshooting and re-editing by the studios and he won Palme d’Or for Othello despite all this)
Rephrasing the question, does the film ‘industry’ push the real geniuses back to mediocrity? Movies being an expensive art form, is it that we would never see the perfect and complete expression of a genius in cinema because even the masters of cinema had been forced to make some compromises in their vision due to economic and pragmatic reasons?
A novelist unlike a film maker is not under pressure to insert a happy ending to satisfy the audience. He dont have to make sure that the hero wins or even that his story needs a hero.
But take our current Indian cinema. What is the place for a real genius who can play with even the basic concepts? who can destroy the current structure of story telling and may be even discard the story telling altogether? Will he be able to make a movie?
Or will he be forced to fall back in line to do what others are doing and work in terms of ’smaller packets of innovative increments?’
Or may be he will abandon it all and spend the rest of his life running a puppet show.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
The best ever made and the best character i have ever seen on the screen
This is one movie that I have watched twice to understand its greatness.
Please find my comments on the same on :
http://jkpcblogs.blogspot.com/2007/11/my-views-on-citizen-kane-review.html
nice post. citizen kane is a fantastic movie and the sheer genius of orson welles reminded me of gurudutt who cud have achieved so much more; but they did not or cud not :(
also, the movie was ahead of its times in story-telling as well as the presentation. when i first saw the movie i cud not believe tat it was filmed in 1941. when everyone around was churning out feel-good movies and epic dramas, orson made a movie about the media [which was still in its nascent stages when compared to current times]. he had the guts and the conviction to do so.
In terms what happened to “Aashayein” , it is very gloomy situation for independent and radical voices, sadly but due to piracy “independent DVD films” concept never took off in India , Anyway even if experimental filmmakers get some digital platform (a platform which can help him earn basic roti kapda and makan thing over the basic digital film making cost)it can keep experimentation alive.And i think today due to digital medium there is a chance or there will be opportunities(filmmaker won’t be famous,won’t buy SUV,but then he can do what he wants). I wonder how,people like shyam benegal,Mrinal sen managed to survive and kept making what they felt for? May be they preferred bureaucracy over producer whims:))
I disagree that Welles never had any sort of creative freedom after Citizen Kane. After he quit the studio system with Touch of Evil, he went on to make Chimes at Midnight, The Trial and F For Fake, all works of genius and all made on his own terms, independently. He created the sort of creative space he needed to make those films. He had to shelve hazaar films midway because of parties backing out of funding halfways but still kept at it relentlessly.
That someone could bounce back so triumphantly after having received the sort of brickbats that he did post Kane should always be an inspiration to anyone no matter how downtrodden a system he/she is working in. It just takes a certain spirit of pursuit, a relentless passion to make it work and I think a lot of the new Indian filmmakers have that. These are very encouraging times. I am very hopeful.
@ crazyrals
Thanks. ‘when i first saw the movie i cud not believe tat it was filmed in 1941.’- exactly my reaction too.
@ Njudo-E-Dara
Shyam Benegal and Mrinal Sen had the advantage of making movies in an era when film production was not a strictly professional money making enterprise. There were some cinema literate people around who didnt mind risking money for a good piece of art.
@ Kiku
When Orson Welles came out of the studio system he faced a different kind of problem- that is economic restraints. He had to make concessions in his vision for example in ‘The Trial.’
But again the question here is not specifically what happened to Orson Welles. What I was trying to say is that the dependence of cinema on capital and the interests related to it always limits the expression of the creator. This is not shared by other art forms not at least to the same extend.
And please dont get the impression that I am calling for abandoning cinema. As you say film makers fight on. But those who survive need seperate personal resilience and adaptability (in short an ability to readjust your vision and move on)in addition to their creativity.
But some who have the genius but dont have the survival instincts may be left behind. And you see a film to see the genius and not the survival instincts of the maker.
i am glad someone talked about it….good for me that while watching the movie i was not aware that it is the no. 1 movie in AFI’s greatest movies and also the favourite movie of MARTIN SCORSESE and many other great directors..it helped me to actually realize the importance and excellence of this film…this is a movie much ahead of its time…..world cinema owes so much to legends like ORSON WELLES….the top class camera angles and outstanding make it hard to believe that it was made in 1941…the last shot when kane looks his wife leaving without any emotions reminds me of great Guru Dutt sahab from pyasa who himself is a part of the golden era of indian cinema….
More power to Welles, right from Kane to F for Fake.