RKO Radio Pictures released Citizen Kane throughout the United States on 5 September 1941. It had previews earlier in the year in New York (1 May), Chicago (6 May), Los Angeles (8 May), Washington (16 May), Boston (19 May), and San Francisco (27 May).
For a long time, cinephiles claimed Citizen Kane as “the greatest film ever made.” This was largely due to the Sight & Sound poll. It was always a questionable claim. And when Vertigo displaced it, the uselessness should have been clear to all.
One thing can’t be denied. Citizen Kane stands out compared to the films that came before it. Viewers at the time must have seen that it was new. But I’ve never been a huge fan of the film.
I am, however, a big fan of Orson Welles. I just don’t care that much for the story. And I’m not that interested in watching Welles’ brilliant direction anymore, considering (1) I’ve seen it a lot and (2) filmmakers since have fully taken in and improved on what he did.
I only own one Welles’ film: F for Fake. That was a revolutionary film. And I don’t know of any filmmaker who has taken this approach and run with it. But I’m also a big fan of his crime films Mr Arkadin and Touch of Evil. I would be a fan of his other crime film, The Lady from Shanghai, but its such a mess! (You should, however, watch the funhouse scene!)
Sadly, most people stopped watching Orson Welles after Citizen Kane. And it isn’t hard to see why. It’s the same reason people watch the latest big movie or TV show. People are followers. Marketing campaigns tell people what they should care about. And people care about it. Hollywood said Welles was a failed genius, and that was that.
Citizen Kane is now a just symbol. It is a film that “everyone must watch” at the same time it is the reason not to watch Welles’ other films that are more enjoyable.
I don’t think Welles ever made a film that wasn’t at least interesting. But for psychotronic fans, Touch of Evil is the touchstone. It is the Welles film that should guide any further forays into his work. So, let’s watch it to celebrate the release of Citizen Kane…
Touch of Evil poster via Wikimedia. It is in the public domain.
.jpg){kind=link}
You can make a case for Kane, and Evil, and several other Welles films. I love F, too, although oddly it seems to have been savaged by critics when it came out.
A little of Akim Tamiroff goes a long way for me, and we get more than a little in Touch. But many of the other performers are quite good. It’s odd that Welles was generally not very good at writing roles for younger female characters. But he wrote a very good role for Dietrich here. (It’s maybe the most memorable role in the movie.) And a good one for Agnes Moorhead in Ambersons, too.
If I recall correctly, he adored Dietrich. Truthfully, I think he was fine as an actor and writer, but nothing too great. But he was a genius as a director.
I think that’s fair about the writing/acting. As you point out, his script for Shanghai was a mess. Aside from some moments in Chimes, Welles was always good as an actor, but never really intensely into it. You’d never believe him as somebody whose heart was broken or dreams were crushed. (Even though in real life his romances were often disastrous and his dreams frequently crushed.)
I know men didn’t generally play sensitive roles at the time, but compare Welles as an actor to, say, James Mason, and you can see the obvious difference.
I wish Welles had done more adaptations of classic lit. (More of that, less Booth Tarkington.) He was good at writing adaptations on the radio, and good at adapting Shakespeare.
I think he could have f***ing nailed Jude the Obscure. Or the shorter Eliot. Imagine Welles doing The Picture of Dorian Gray! Oh Lord, that could have been great!
But who would have given him the money for it?
I don’t think I’ll easily be able to get the idea out of my mind of Welles directing Jude. That could have been amazing! I don’t care that much for The Magnificent Ambersons, although I think he did an amazing job even with the terrible edits at the end of the film. But I do think he was great doing genre. Not only Touch of Evil but also Mr Arkadin. The Trial is also exception.
Yeah, maybe Wilde is more of a stretch. But Jude… that’s awfully close to what Welles could have been. He was well-read even as a kid, and it’s really blind luck that he didn’t end up poor as shit. (Talent, too, but all sorts of talented people don’t get as lucky as he did.)
Could he have made a movie about a character that close to himself and put personal feeling into it? Dunno. It would have been interesting to see him try.
I recommend reading Simon Callow’s first biography of Welles. It paints a picture of a man obsessed with success. So I kind of think he would have done okay. But it’s also true that a lot of people helped him out along the way. What’s great about Callow is that he admires Welles but he doesn’t buy all the nonsense that surrounds me (much of it due to Welles’ own myth making).
Library request activated! I just like Callow, anyways. He’s one of those Brit charmers who could probably do a YouTube video on the history of telephone books and I’d find him interesting.
Yeah, he’s really good. I liked him as an actor long before he started writing. He’s also very knowledgeable.