Citizen Kane

This is not a formal "review" of Citizen Kane, but instead a set of random (and probably highly debatable and misguided!) observations about this remarkable film.

 

I find that the reputation of the movie is so formidable that one feels an obligation to concentrate intently on the socio-political content and moral undertones, to the extent of over-analysing it and extracting a distorted or over-zealous interpretation. Also, an excessive focus on the perceived messages risks hindering a full appreciation of the film's technical excellence and innovation.

 

At the same time, it is easy to become caught up in the "Rosebud" "enigma", and forget the deeper things which Orson Welles et al were possibly trying to say.  "Rosebud" may have been intended as a bookend device, to hold the thing together. Yes, Kane in his dying breath appeared to lament the loss of childhood innocence and happiness, with the intrusion of wealth, power and adulthood. However, some other elements of the story are worthy of comment.

 

How significant is it, for example, that Kane was set on his way by his family suddenly coming into money, by a sudden extraneous intervention which was bound to disturb his equilibrium, and lead to an air of unreality and artificiality?  The gold mine which was discovered on the Kane family's land can perhaps be seen as a metaphor or dubious portent of sorts, a symbol of plenty and affluence which actually led to impoverishment of a non-material kind for one of the supposed beneficiaries?

 

Watching Citizen Kane, I mused on the nature and effects of "privilege", good fortune and windfalls. It is often (correctly) noted how such things often lead to a sense of injustice amongst the less fortunate, but it must be remembered that those on whom "fortune" is bestowed are often harmed or blighted in a different way. An inheritance or bequest can be a mixed blessing indeed...

 

 

 

Some of the "Orwellian" imagery is very potent, and was of course very in vogue in the early 1940s. Such aesthetics may not be particularly fashionable these days, but they would be just as apposite, as many of the themes which gave rise to that backdrop are as relevant and prevalent as ever; the depredations of the state and big business, whether separately or in concert. It strikes me that somebody should make a 21st-century equivalent of Citizen Kane. The raw material is plentiful, even if the age of reclusive and eccentric media moguls appears to have passed.

 

On the subject of media moguls, it occurs to me that we no longer have campaigning and crusading newspapers in the style of Kane's New York Daily Inquirer. True, a paper may occasionally get its teeth into an emotive and pressing issue, but this tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Even if the motives are occasionally questionable, such campaigns have the capacity to do good and challenge the existing orthodoxy, and make those in power uncomfortable. Those who undertake things for selfish reasons still sometimes leave some positives in their wake..

 

It can also be argued that the picture poses a question about wealth "for its own sake" and wealth as the gateway to power, as pursued by some of Kane's adversaries, and wealth as a means to an end, but what those "ends" are is left largely unresolved, and their promise unredeemed. Much of the "philanthropy" which we see is aimed primarily at making Kane loved by individuals close to him, or by the public at large. People who feel misunderstood simply become more defensive and insecure when attempts to ingratiate themselves are shunned.

 

During the newsreel segments at the start, we see the "Noah's Ark" analogy in Kane's zoo. What symbolism here I wonder?  More evidence of a siege mentality, or the conceit of a man who continued to believe that he was doing the world a favour by his activities?

 

With each viewing Citizen Kane becomes slightly less dazzling and awe-inspiring to me, but the more pessimistic and grim an impression of the human condition it leaves. This may simply reflect my own shifting attitudes. All the same, it is still a diverting and startling piece of cinema.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Third Man - movie review

I am currently on another of my periodic campaigns to watch some of those films which, for one reason or another, have passed me by over the years. Until yesterday, one such movie was The Third Man, the 1949 Carol Reed thriller, with a screenplay by Graham Greene. I wasn't previously aware that Greene's screenplay actually preceded the publication of his novella of the same name.

The film is set in post-World War Two Vienna, and centres on a trip to the city made by an American author, Holly Martins, played by Joseph Cotten. He is seeking to renew acquaintance with his friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles). Upon arriving in Vienna, Martins is informed of Lime's death. The remainder of the story addresses Martins' inquiries, revelations concerning Lime's involvement in racketeering, and the revelation that his death had been "faked", culminating in his actual demise in the exciting final scene in Vienna's subterranean sewers.

In the early scenes of the film, much effort is made to project the atmosphere of post-war Vienna. Cosmopolitan, edgy, uncertain, oppressive. The black and white helps to project the austere, gloomy times. One has to wonder if The Third Man would have had the same power if it had been produced in later years in colour. Very few of the scenes take place in daylight, adding to the ominous and insidious feel. Excellent use is also made of the architecture and landmarks of Vienna to generate powerful imagery and metaphors.

As we meet some of the characters, there is a growing sense of a people numbed by war and its aftermath, but still coping. Mistrust and fear seem to be the dominant emotions, with people constantly unsure whether they are being manipulated or exploited. Loyalties and personal morality are tested to their limits, as everyone concentrates on survival.

Probably the most memorable scene in the film is the one where Harry Lime reappears, having previously been presumed dead. The enigmatic expression on Orson Welles' face is the thing which makes it so potent. Welles has comparatively little screen-time, but his charisma dominates the closing stages of The Third Man.

When watching the movie, I pondered whether Harry Lime was a product of the times. He was unscrupulous and cynical, but at the same time insecure. All of these qualities are on display during the iconic scene on the Ferris wheel.

Mention should also be made of the performances of Alida Valli, Trevor Howard and Bernard Lee. Valli is particularly impressive as Anna Schimdt, the subject of much agonising by both Martins and Lime.

In the final analysis, I think that as well as being a superb film noir, The Third Man is all about loyalty and morality, and the examination of these things in extreme circumstances. I am very glad that I made the effort to watch it!

The movie "Waterloo"

Just recently, I watched the 1970 film "Waterloo", starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon Bonaparte and Christopher Plummer as the Duke of Wellington. The work was produced by Dino de Laurentiis, and is an account of the pivotal 1815 battle.

I had seen the film on a couple of occasions as a youngster, but decided to revisit it because of my recent study of the Napoleonic era.

The movie opens with a resume of Napoleon's original downfall, abdication and exile to Elba, as well as his dramatic return and reassumption of the reins of power. The rest of the film is devoted to the build-up to Waterloo, and to the battle itself.

Visually, the film is stunning, as would perhaps be anticipated for a de Laurentiis epic. The visuals are ideally complemented by the music.

Steiger gives a superb performance, perfectly capturing Bonaparte's volatility and passion. By contrast, Plummer seemed the ideal choice to embody the cool and aloof Wellington. There is also an excellent supporting cast of character actors, and a cameo for Orson Welles as King Louis.

Although diligent scholars will doubtless detect inaccuracies, both historical and military, overall the film probably takes fewer liberties in these areas than most others of its genre. The battle scenes are suitably elaborate and dramatic, if slightly unrealistic in places. To their credit, the producers do not entirely shy away from the horrors of war in their portrayal of the fighting.

To view the film again in its entirety after a number of years gave me a renewed appreciation of its merits. It remains an accessible, compelling but also reasonably definitive account of its subject.