The Rise (and Inevitable Fall) of Citizen Kane

There is no “inevitable fall” of Citizen Kane, neither in the article itself nor in film theory circles. The closest the article gets is this, which is not exactly convincing:

But one thing seems sure. The idea of a consensus pick, and for that matter the need for any kind of consensus, is a thing of the past. Citizen Kane, the ultimate canon title, has itself become proof that canons are there to be exploded.

The recently released Mank is the reason for a renewed interest in Kane, and in an ironic twist of fate, it’s a disaster of a film, probably Fincher’s worst, and it makes Welles’ cutting hand and firm direction seem like the actual genius behind the picture.

In any case, if you ever have a few free hours, I recommend listening to some interviews with Welles. He had to be one of the most entertaining and erudite conversationalists we’ve ever had. With all the names and situations referenced in his (probably embellished) stories, it’s like listening to a recording from a lost world.

https://youtu.be/oQYazeJA-Oo

https://youtu.be/1LnuQZ6VD_Y

> The recently released Mank is … a disaster of a film, probably Fincher’s worst

Could you elaborate on this? The general critical reception of Mank seems positive.

I have never particularly enjoyed Citizen Kane. To me, and this is just my opinion, it is a film where all of the component parts—acting, cinematography, sound, etc—are brilliant, but are somehow less than the sum of their parts. If you take any individual component and focus on it you are blown away by the craftsmanship, but as a cohesive film, I feel, it just doesn’t come together as well as many of the other films often mentioned as a candidate for best film, such as Casablanca.

Obviously many others, most of whom know more than me about film, feel differently.

The article suggests an inevitable fall in rankings - I mean, do you expect it to be #1 for the rest of history? In any case, these lists are tenuous, subject to vagaries of film distribution, canonization, and critic selection, as the article's questioning of such readily-made canons suggests.

The true insight of the piece is how it got there in the first place. And I don't think any serious cinephile will give you an answer to "the best movie of all time" without qualifications.

For a medium that is dependent on technology I’d say it’s impressive for any old movie to stand the test of time. I love old movies and I’m always impressed with their resourcefulness and heart. My favourite film is Seven Samurai but I sincerely hope that we can continue to make movies which challenge the preeminence of all time classics like Citizen Kane, Tokyo Story, The Rules of the Game, 8 1/2 .. like really take your pick of the top films on that list and you or anyone would do well to watch them many times over.

Anyone who doubts citizen Kane really needs to check out what kind of films were being made before it. CK was bold and experimental, an astounding picture. It’s still fresh in many ways and moving, dated too for sure but a definite classic. Orson Welles is legitimately one of my artistic heroes and he got screwed by the powers that be at the time. I kind of hate to see his work presented this way when he himself loved many of the film makers with movies on the sight and sound list.

Honestly I’m very take it or leave it with Hitchcock’s Vertigo which is the current #1 and it will probably maintain the stop spot on the critic list during the next polls. I also don’t get Sunset which always places super high. It’s good and the running in the field scene is a thrill but that’s the thing about these lists anyways, they are just a statistical average of what everyone thinks but we all have our personal dark horse favourites. One day, Battle Royale will get the credit it deserves.

I’ve been drinking if this seems disjointed.