Citizen Kane (1941)

Director:

Orson Welles

Writers:

Herman J. Mankiewicz (screenplay) and
Orson Welles (screenplay)

Release Date:

1 May 1941 (USA)

Genre:

Drama | Mystery

Tagline:

365 days in the making - and every minute of it an exciting NEW thrill for you !

Plot:

Following the death of a publishing tycoon, news reporters scramble to discover the meaning of his final utterance.

Plot Keywords:

Reporter | Rosebud | Newspaper | Flashback | Estate

Awards:

Won Oscar. Another 4 wins & 9 nominations

Cast

Joseph Cotten	...	Jedediah Leland
Orson Welles	...	Charles Foster Kane
Dorothy Comingore	...	Susan Alexander Kane
Agnes Moorehead	...	Mary Kane
Ruth Warrick	...	Emily Monroe Norton Kane
Ray Collins	...	James W. Gettys
Erskine Sanford	...	Herbert Carter
Everett Sloane	...	Mr. Bernstein
William Alland	...	Jerry Thompson
Paul Stewart	...	Raymond
George Coulouris	...	Walter Parks Thatcher
Fortunio Bonanova	...	Signor Matiste
Gus Schilling	...	The Headwaiter
Philip Van Zandt	...	Mr. Rawlston
Georgia Backus	...	Bertha Anderson

Also Known As:

American (USA) (working title)
John Citizen, U.S.A. (USA) (working title)

Runtime:

119 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (RCA Sound System)

Certification:

Canada:F (Ontario) | Canada:G (Manitoba/Nova Scotia/Quebec) | Netherlands:6 | South Korea:12 | Brazil:Livre | Finland:K-11 (DVD rating) | Argentina:Atp | Australia:G (original rating) | Australia:PG (DVD rating) | Chile:TE | Finland:K-16 | Germany:12 | Ireland:12 (DVD rating) (2003) | Israel:PG | Peru:PT | Portugal:M/12 | Spain:T | Sweden:15 | UK:A (original rating) | UK:U (video rating) (1985) | USA:PG

Filming Locations:

New York City, New York, USA

Company:

Mercury Productions

Trivia:

The scene with Charles Bennett and the "chorus girls" was supposed to have taken place in a brothel, but the Hays Office would not allow it. That didn't bother Orson Welles too much, as he knew the brothel setting would draw their attention away from other elements of the script he knew they would object to, which was why he had introduced it in the first place.

Goofs:

Crew or equipment visible: During the office party scene in which Kane welcomes the newly acquired Chronicle staff to The Inquirer, one of the dancing girls kicks a footlight that is being use to illuminate the scene (look in the lower left-hand corner of the frame).

Quotes:

[first lines]
Charles Foster Kane: Rosebud.

Movie Connections:

Spoofed in "The Simpsons: Marge Gets a Job (#4.7)" (1992)

Soundtrack:

The Battle Cry of Freedom

See it for what it is

OK look, let me settle something between those who love and hate this film. A lot of people hail this film because it is technically brilliant and ground breaking. Director Orson Welles did a lot of things visually that no one had ever done before. Nearly every film maker was in some way influenced by this movie. This movie also had a great impact in its time. The title character was based on media giant William Randolph Hearst. He was that generations Donald Trump. He opposed this film so much he did everything in its power to stop its release and almost succeeded. Lastly this film contains some of the strongest and most common themes in literature; Life versus death. It is for these reasons why this film is so revered.

On the contrary people who hate this film mainly complain that it is boring. Which is a legitimate complaint. The story is slow compared to today's standards, and there is no real Hearst character alive today in which to relate. So yes, the story on the surface is outdated. However, this does not make it a bad movie. It was not made as a Matrix/Star Wars type of movie which can be enjoyed even at surface level. This is not pure entertainment. Remember there is more to film than storytelling. This film was designed to be cinematically beautiful and to tell a basic story of love and redemption. There is much more to the story than the thinly veiled attack on Hearst, one just needs to look deeper. Look at Shakespeare or Hawthorne for example, their literary works are universally loved. Yet, many people blow them off because they refuse to look past the outdated language into the beautiful prose and simple ubiquitous themes. Just because something is outdated does not mean it lacks worth in today's world.

My advice to those who did not like it the first time or have not seen it yet is simple. Watch it again for what it is. Do not expect to be on the edge of your seat for two hours. Watch it for the cinematography that alone makes this film among the best (I don't agree with AFI's number one ranking but I think it still ranks high). Look deeper into the story and try to connect with it on some level. At the very least appreciate how influential this film was and where the industry would be without it. If you can do this, then maybe some of the naysayers will change their minds. Again, you do not have to love Citizen Kane, but at least respect it for what it is.