So, yesterday I was wondering if Citizen Kane was boring like some folks had been telling me recently. My argument has always been that it’s great, but I haven’t seen it since the late 90′s, so what do I know? Last night I watched it again and IT’S TERRIFIC! It even says so on the movie poster.
So, what’s the deal? Why do some of my friends who ordinarily can tell good from bad have little love for Kane? Is it the occasionally over-stylized acting? Maybe. Black and White? No way, they’re better than that. Unattainably high expectations created by lists like the AFI’ 100 Greatest Movies along with an incredible mythology/history rooted in outrageous facts and fictions? Bingo!
Being ranked “THE BEST” is a pretty impossible situation. Expectations are raised to a level that can only rarely be satisfied. Especially when there are sooooooo many great films in the world.
So, why bother ranking things? Why not take the consensus 10 or 20 best, and put them out there without ranking which of the ten is the best ten? It’s all so arbitrary and leaves no room for individual tastes and experiences.
Paul Schrader, when attempting to write a Film Canon (intro only [read the whole thing as a PDF here]) strived to “…as best I could, to separate personal favorites from those movies that artistically defined film history.” Maybe that’s where the conflict arises between the “great” films and the ones we really love and could watch over and over again.
I enjoyed watching Citizen Kane again; marveling at its exquisite cinematography, masterful manipulation of traditional narrative structure and its absorbing story of the rise and fall of a truly singular personality (embodying the parallelish real lives and downward spirals of William Randolph Hearst and Welles himself), but the reality is that it’s not even on my personal top 10 favorites list. I like it. It’s great. IT’S TERRIFIC! But, it can’t quite reconcile the chasm sometimes separating greatest and favoritest, which changes from person to person (with art being all subjective and stuff).
Thus the disconnect between the canonized films and those that make us feel something new, fulfilling and unexplainable. Perhaps my friends went into Kane expecting the kind of transformative experience that the films reputation seemed to promise. Unfair to be sure, but it is what it is.
Schrader’s canon has The Rules of the Game at the #1 spot and Kane drops to 6. If rankings are necessary, then I think I can get behind this one. I have a far greater fondness for Rules as it connects with me on a more emotional level than Kane, which feels more intellectual, colder. And unlike Kane, which is forced to be “THE ONE,” Rules can simply be.
Or maybe the people who think Citizen Kane is boring are just dumb and should go back to their 4 hour director’s cut of the Watchmen. There’s no accounting for taste as they say.
