A film needs craft to stay afloat

Hello everyone. First post for a first-time blogger. I think that means I'm supposed to say something emo now. But I won't because...what's the point?

Let's get to it. Citizen Kane. I like it. This is the third time I have studied it in the past year, so there's clearly something important about it:

Citizen Kane has a problem. Universally recognized with few exceptions as the greatest American film in history. Just ask the AFI. On the other hand, it's possible the new generation of movie-going public doesn't enjoy it, and it will be replaced as the greatest once the current AFI judges finally go to that silver screen in the sky. Someone asked me, "If it's such a great film, why do you have to be taught in a class why it's so great?" Good question. Either because education is necessary to grasp its depth, or because a certain mindset (rather than a certain education) is required to appreciate it, a mindset that no longer exists naturally, must be taught, and is now irrelevant.

Now, I've completely glossed over the issue of "greatest film" versus "enjoy." I'm sure some critics would say that enjoyment has nothing to do with great films, but that'a an entry for another day. SPOILER ALERT: To get the thrust of the dissenting opinion on this film, find the Citizen Kane reference in the Family Guy episode "Screwed the Pooch"

Cinematography is one the film's strong points. The film's worth as a whole may be arguable, but its craft is undeniable. I've talked to another film student whose instructor asserted that Citizen Kane uses every type of camera angle and shot combination in existence. I don't know about that, but we get an example of Orson Welles' camera cleverness pretty early in the film with his ridiculous affinity for graphic match cuts. Once we pass over the wire into Xanadu, we see a montage of its now-overgrown attractions: Monkeys, gondolas, a golf course...but the background remains...consistent. The castle's position stays the same in every shot, despite that the shots are from different positions on set, and the little point of light in one of its windows never moves, even when reflected in the water with the castle is upside-down (Xanadu Intro 3). Seven shots in uninterrupted succession are like that.

Nothing but graphically-matched lap dissolves in the intro scene, and they happen so quickly that its actually difficult to grab snapshots that aren't a blend of at least two shots. I can tell from all this that there's a clear theory behind the scene, but what? Symbolism isn't impossible, but it doesn't closely match anything about the rest of the film that I can think of.

Rosebud. I'm not a spoiler. If you haven't seen it before, just be sure you pay attention, although, honestly, it probably won't matter. You'll find out everything you want to, but it's tough to grasp how the realization at the end of the film gets set up. Dr. Jackson of LBST 1102 says to understand any film you need to watch it at least twice. Definitely true of Citizen Kane.

Time to rest. This film is as thick as Welles was in his late career, and looking at it from every angle is just as time-consuming. Next time I'll concentrate on the NEWS ON THE MARCH sequence.