Infinite Jest said:
The reason it doesn't look innovative now is that all subsequent films have used these techniques, and we've seen those films, so Kane's techniques aren't new to us.
Good point.
A lot of the credit for the highly stylized realism of Citizen Kane should go to cinematographer Greg Toland, who was an expert in the newest filmmaking techniques. Under Orson Welles' direction, he had the chance to experiment with deep focus, wide angle lenses, high speed film and masterful lighting, all of which helped Citizen Kane redefine the technical production of motion pictures. Some of the scenes, like the projector room scene in the beginning of the film, were considered so experimental that when Orson Welles sent the dailies back to RKO he claimed it was just a film test. Of course, this ended up being one of the most brilliant scene compositions in the movie and, arguably, of all time.
Despite Toland's considerable talents, this is Orson Welles' masterpiece. He got a nice fat contract out of RKO and they gave him free reign over the production; RKO monitored progress on the film through the dailies but there were no executives on set and the film obviously benefits from it. The budget was also pretty reasonable; despite the reputation he would eventually earn in Hollywood, cost overruns were not really a problem for Welles on this film.
But aside from the technical achievement of the film, the story itself - for which Welles and Joseph Mankiewicz share joint credit and no one is quite sure who wrote what - is exceptional. Citizen Kane can never be accused of evoking style over substance. The story is complex, intelligent, fun, sad, epic - it distills an infinitely complex life into 2 hours and yet it doesn't feel like you've lost anything. The breaking up of the narrative, the contraction and dilation of time - they all contribute to the timeless quality of the production.
The acting is equally strong. Orson Welles, who is in the same mould-shattering acting class as Marlon Brando (at a time when film was full of boring Clark Gables and Cary Grants), is phenomenal. He really inhabits the character of Charles Foster Kane; in every scene featuring Kane, you can't take your eyes off of him. The perennially underrated Joseph Cotten also makes his screen debut. The rest of the actors, many of them drawn from Welles' Mercury Theatre group, round out the performances. Taking stage actors and transplanting them into film is typical of Kane's break from Hollywood formula.
I don't agree with the American Film Institute that it is the best film of all time, but it certainly is up there, especially when considered in context. Hollywood had never seen
anything like this in 1941.
