JackFavell wrote:Oh my gosh! Where to begin?
It's always best to begin at the beginning, and in the case of Welles that means a trip to Xanadu, where you'll find the
loot of the world, which pollinates the rest of his work.
I am dealing with a screaming 1 yr-old whose back molars are coming in right now, so I don't have much time to post, but here are a few of my older posts that deal with the contrasts between
Citizen Kane and
How Green was my Valley, as well as my general thoughts on Orson's debut feature:
How Green Was My Valley is a great film. Unfortunately, it is not as well known these days as the film that didn't win,
Citizen Kane. However, I find the two films evenly matched and if a recount was called by today's viewers (who had the opportunity to view both films) I think
How Green would definitely win again. An interesting thing that Peter Bogdanovich noted, was how similar both films actually are. Both films are about the dissolution of the family unit, but use different styles to interpet what family is. Bogdanovich states
"Kane is about the affluent and powerful while Green is about everybody else."
But there's also a difference in outlook.
Green although tragic, has the perserverance of the human spirit behind it. In
Kane, all the possessions lie waiting for the furnace. We know from Huw's experiences (learning to walk, working in the mine) that he will start over and rebuild his life. Kane (who never had to work for anything--
"If I hadn't been rich I might have become a great man") leaves no heir and donates none of his fortune. Everything (his dreams, possessions, wealth, and even Rosebud) will die with him. If
Green shows a family's unselfishness,
Kane shows a man so desperate for love he will buy and use whatever means possible to salve his loneliness.
Green like the color, gives us hope of renewal.
Kane is it's fatalistic doppelganger, which suggests love once lost, can never be regained.
Although I think there are many negative elements to Kane, some of these points were beyond his control. I don't really find Kane greedy. Rather, he is an example of impoverished love. Huw, grew up with a loving family and a father who taught him about life. Charlie Kane's father was abusive and his mother a clinging, dominating woman who sent him away as a child to be raised by Thatcher, who was more interested in Charles investments than Charles Foster Kane the person. Kane is raised with the best of everything but lacking the ingredient of love. Huw is materially poor, but rich in affection. Both of these films track different styles of life, but they both deal with family love and its nurturing properties. While Huw becomes a man, Kane recedes into childishness.
It's the globe with Rosebud inside (which is actually seen more than once earlier in the film) that finally brings him full circle. He finally comes to realize his nature and how it was formed. Unfortunately like Rosebud trapped in the globe, Kane, now an old man, is helpless and unable to change his life (he tries with Susan before she leaves) because he doesn't have Huw's perspective. When Thompson the reporter says:
"All the same I can't help feeling sorry for Mr. Kane." Susan speaks for all of us when she replies
" Don't you think I do?"
I personally love
Citizen Kane, but I can understand why some people don't care for it. One thing about the film that is very off putting to viewers is the fact that the first couple of scenes are designed to take us out of our comfort zone. We are hit with three different scenes at the start of the film in a whirlwind fashion, all dealing with a man we have no knowledge or background of.
When Thompson the reporter goes calling, we never see his face. We also never meet Kane in real life. We are left with only memories from others who hold their own biased views of what he was like. In short, we are given NO ONE with which to identify. It's up to us to put the puzzle together each time we watch and decide just who Charles Foster Kane is.
This is the power of the film for those who love it and the weakness for those who do not. Kane is a film that demands much from us. Our active participation and reasoning are required to make the film work.
Depending on insights or the mood in which we see the film, Kane can become all kinds of different things to different viewers. Some see him as a spoiled child, some as a master manipulator, others as a pitiful man who never received love, or perhaps how his wealth isolated him from love. Some see him as all these things, others see him as none of them. Kane is an open ended book that requires US to fill in the final pages with our own experiences and emotional baggage. This is not a film for passive viewing. It's also not a one-watch film. Every time we see Kane we find something different about him and discover something also about ourselves.
Although the film has humor and is enjoyable, it's hard on viewers who are not willing to participate in it's game. So many see this as half a film and in a sense they are right--it's what we bring to the film that completes it and makes it personal to us. This is one of the reasons why it's considered one of the greatest films ever made.