The movie also shows that having tremendous amounts of wealth does not bring more happiness. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that having more money doesn't mean more happiness. Money is merely a tool. "Money will make you more of what you already are. If you're not a nice person, money's going to make you a despicable individual. If you're a good person, money's going to make you a better person." - Bob Proctor. Kane came by money at a very early age. He was separated from his parents and thus never experienced a full, loving childhood. He showed his dissatisfaction and frustration with life by rebelling against Walter Thatcher at any given opportunity. He had LOTS of money, but no love. He learned that money could buy things, and even people. He could get anything (and anyone) he wants, thus he never experienced any hardships (the type that an average person would experience, anyway). Whenever he faced any problems or challenges, he threw money at it. His life experiences taught him that money could solve any problem. Unfortunately, money could not solve the problems of the heart. It could not buy Susan's love. It could surround Kane with "friends", but it would not dissolve his loneliness. It could help Kane build an opera house, but it would not make Susan want to sing. It could help Kane build a palace, but it would not fill the palace with warmth. It's ironic because when Kane's mother sent him away, she told him, "You won't be lonely." Kane died a lonely death. Not a single friend was by his side when he breathed his last. The only thought that kept him company was "Rosebud". A short memory of better times, before he was cursed with wealth. What a life... Would you call it a tragedy? I do not know. ------------------------------------------ During my second watch, I could see that Kane relates to Susan (on the first night they met). Susan said that her mother wanted her to be a singer. Maybe that's why Kane provided her with music lessons and built an opera house for her. After all, Kane never personally felt that he accomplished much. That's why he once said, "If I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man." So he wanted to see Susan succeed where he failed. He wanted to help her. Unfortunately, Susan didn't want to continue being a singer. At the end, Kane relented and told her she didn't have to sing anymore. The main reason is because Susan tried to overdose. But I believe part of the reason is because he saw himself becoming Walter Thatcher, and Susan was rebelling against him (just like young Kane rebelled against Walter). I suppose Kane did feel a form of love for Susan, to do all those things for her. It's just that he insisted on doing things his way, and never stopped to think about Susan's feelings or how to make her feel loved. Not until it was too late and Susan left him. ------------------------------------------ A few scenes in the movie show the passage of time. Time flies, and it flies oh, so fast. One day, you're seven. The next, you're seventy. Naturally, the time is sped up during the movie to show us the key events that happen in Kane's life. Even so, I can't help but think this, "Did Kane enjoy the times in between? Did he immerse himself in his day to day life? Did he ever find joy in the little things?" Only Kane would know... I'm not even close to a quarter as wealthy as Kane, but I sure am glad that I still get to enjoy the mundaneness of my day to day life. If you're reading this, I hope you have a great day today, tomorrow, every day.
Citizen Kane is a masterpiece imo and I see more within every time I watch and your closing commentary was so excellent I learned more about it from you as well. It was Welles' very first film and his direction is mindblowing and with great assistance from Director of Photography Gregg Toland the film is unbelievably visually metaphorical in its storytelling and photographically unlike anything seen before. And the camera reflects the many ooints of views of each character. AndcBernard Herrmann's music, his first film score as well, is perfection. It's a tragedy, for sure but one that elevates an attentive audience with insights rather than devastate it with sadness.
This is rightly considered one of the best films of all time, but less for the story than for the innovative way it is told and for the cinematography and production methods which were previously unseen in mainstream movies and have made a lasting impact to this very day.
As much or more for story in my opinion. "Its surface is as much fun as any movie ever made. Its depths surpass understanding." -- Ebert on Citizen Kane
The character of Charles Foster Kane was based in part on the newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst. Hearst was furious about how he was portrayed, and even moreso about the character of Susan, who was based on his mistress Marion Davies. Hearst refused to let the movie be advertised in his papers, and prohibited any mention of the film as well. He tried to destroy Orson Welles, and did serious damage to his career. Xanadu was based on Hearst's home in San Simeon, California. The Hearst Castle, as it is now called, is operated as a museum by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Mercury was Orson Welles's radio theatre company. He hired his old ensemble for Citizen Kane, including Joseph Cotten, Everett Sloane, and Agnes Moorehead. They worked on radio contracts, so they were cheaper to hire. On the other hand, they could do long, unbroken scenes with ease, very important for this film.
it knocks me out that talking pictures were only about 11 years old when this film was made. my god! what a vision Orson Wells had! wowie wow. I was blown away the first time I saw this film, and it was in the early 1980's. I was 16 years old, and was watching a videotape of CITIZEN KANE. I wanted to see what the fuss was all about. and omg! I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. so many things. I was simply dazzled! that tracking shot from above into the bar with Susan in the storm. the reflection in the glasses of the nurse. the shadows. the newsreel sections. the sound plot-the echoes when Susan is doing the puzzle. when Charles begins tearing apart Susan's room. and then that final section with the reporters, their voices, into that shot of the sled and the name. the paint and bubbling up in the furnace. my mind was blown. this was stunning looking to me on a television screen in the early 1980's. let alone how this must have hit on a big screen in 1940. and this is still stunning looking today 2024. sound had only been put to film for 11 years when CITIZEN KANE was released. This film and THE WIZARD OF OZ both knock me out in terms of the technical things in both films. there were some really talented geniuses involved in the early days of cinema. thank heavens films like this were preserved so that we can still see that vision today. great take on this major piece of art. thanks for posting!
"Citizen Kane" is such an Important Film! There are Books written about it, Film Classes about it and Movies made about it! Not many Films have that kind of Interest or Honour! .... "GWTW", "Oz" or "Casablanca" maybe "2001"?
Joseph Cotton was performing on Broadway opposite Kathrine Hepburn in THE PHILADELPHIA STORY at the time and took a leave of absence from the production to appear in this movie.
Look closely in the projection room scene in the beginning and you will see Joseph Cotton and Everette Sloan ("Mr. Bernstein") sitting in the shadows with the other men.
Much of what is important about this film shot in 1940 is the cinematography, the lighting design, the set design, sound design and other technical innovations. Much of modern cinematic work comes out of techniques, equipment and stylistic choices created for this film. The scene showing Kane giving a speech far below the balcony where we as the audience are watching him, but both in perfect focus, was achieved by shooting two scenes and then combining them. The use of ceilings in the sets was new, and there were elements used even today and altho this was not a ‘Film Noir’, it includes innovations with shadows, and uses every hue from darkest black to grays to bright whites to highlight character, snd set mood and enhance tension. Many scenes include two entirely different focus points, one may be a reflection in a window, one may be far away, one may be in deep background but there is always a lot of layers and details to absorb in whatever is seen close-up, in middle ground and far back, all equally important to the story and development of the scene. Cameras in almost every scene are placed at unusual angles, heights and positions; very little in this film is what was usual or commonly done, even by the great filmmakers before 1940.
I do not like to throw the word, genius, around a lot. But at least in his chosen craft, Gregg Toland was a genius. The story is that Toland went to Welles and practically begged him to let him have the job. Because he wanted to film a movie for a director that had never done a film before. Which was kind of genius in itself. As a forward thinking cinematographer, that is good as it gets. So, Welles, in his ignorance, just told Toland what he wanted and didn't try to do his job for him. I saw it in the theater in the early 80s. The snowglobe just 'pops' when it first makes an appearance the night he meets Susan. It is the mirror shot, so essentially, he is looking at the snowglobe and talking to her at the same time. (made me wonder how much the snowglobe influenced his initial attraction to her) His use of the sets and deep focus was a game changer in the industry. And he was just getting better. He was still tinkering with the lens. And was still making deep focus improvements right up to his death at an all-too-soon 44.
I see. I did not even realize they combined two shots from different points of focus to create the scene. You know a lot about cinematography and the various set designs! 😊 If that was the case, then it was a smart move by Toland indeed. Creative juices can flow when you're not limited by your client's requirements. I didn't even notice that the snowglobe was in Susan's room the night Kane met her! 😯 Thanks for sharing~ 😉
Based mainly on the life of William Randolph Hearst who ran several newspapers and was a pioneer in "yellow journalism" and also ran for public office (and served in the House of Representatives), also had a much younger mistress (Marion Davies, who was an actress, not an opera singer) whom he lived with in a sprawling estate: San Simeon in northern California.
This film used the be called 'the greatest film ever made'. Of course since that statement another 10,000 films have been made, giving this film some competition.
When asked the meaning of the screeching cockatoo Orson Welles replied, "To wake up the audience," in case they were getting groggy so late in the film.
@henryellow, @Henryellow , well done. I don't know if you see these comments once the reaction is a couple of months old, but 1. This was the first musical score by Bernard Herrmann, who later composed the Hitchcock scores "Vertigo," "North by Northwest" and "Psycho." 2. I highly recommend you do another Orson Welles movie, "Touch of Evil" (director's cut). 3. This movie too repays repeat watching. It's amazing to watch with the sound off because you suddenly realize how complex all the shots are. 💙 #henryellow #Henryellow
The story behind the movie is as interesting as the movie. And the rumor, believed to be true, to what, "Rosebud," really meant is enough of a reason to see why Hearst did all in his considerable power to crush the film, and Welles. Rosebud was rumored to be Hearst's affectionate nickname for Marion Davies' naughty bits. And while Welles captured a lot of Hearst and his personality, he really did Marion dirty. Welles seemed to have been a genuine fan of Marion and her abilities as an entertainer.
The words at the beginning are the opening lines of a famous poem finished in 1797: “Kubla Khan - Or, a vision in a dream. A Fragment. - by Samuel Taylor Coleridge In Xanadu did Kubla Khan A stately pleasure-dome decree…” The word Xanadu ( emphasis on the first syllable “ZA…) was to describe an imaginary place dreamed by Coleridge but based on the palaces of Kubla Khan, who lived in the mid 1200’s and was the grandson of Genghis Khan.
Legend has it that Coleridge was in a fever of creation while writing it, was interrupted by someone at the door, popped out of his trance, and was never able to finish the poem (I've been there). Here's the poem: th-cam.com/video/pIpwMSrHBfU/w-d-xo.html
Many great contributors to this film, including cinematographer Gregg Toland. Bernard Herrmann's film scores begin here and end with TAXI DRIVER. Welles demonstrated such great potential, but was seldom able to exploit the potential fully after this.
~ Not crazy about Orson Welles, something about him just rubs me the wrong way, but this film has one of the greatest, most relatable endings of all time‼️‼️
My follow up tip after this one is the TV docu-drama RKO 281 from 1999 that tells the almost true story of how the movie was made, and very nearly not made. With Liev Schreiber as Orson Welles and James Cromwell as William Randolph Hearst (The real world Charles Foster Kane) who didn't approve of Citizen Kane. Well, the last third of RKO 281 is apparently very close to the truth...
Regarding Susan: To make her inapt singing believable, they hired a professional opera singer and asked her to sing out of her range. The film's iconic composer, Bernard Herrmann, made a complete aria - Salammbo - since no existing opera in history begins with an aria.
At first, I thought you meant that the actress (Dorothy Comingore) was an opera singer. Now I understand that her singing scenes were voiced over. Thanks for sharing 😊
Wow, Henry, thanks for doing this one! Excellent analysis! I love that you guessed it a little earlier than most people do; certainly earlier than I did the first time I saw it (I was around 11 years old, admittedly!). I love this movie, it was a favorite of mine long before I ever knew that it held such a high place in film history. Every time I watch it I see something else in it. Orson Welles was only 25 when he made this movie! Wrote, directed and acted in this epic story. And it's his very first film! Amazing. You never think of him as 25 years old, you accept him at every age. There was so much controversy about this film that it pretty much destroyed his career. An excellent documentary about this is called "The Battle Over Citizen Kane", or you can just read about it. Orson Welles never had full control over a movie ever again; his films are brilliant, but they were almost always taken away from him and edited by someone else and usually mutilated. He did three incredible Shakespeare adaptations: Macbeth, Othello and Chimes At Midnight, which combines parts of different plays (focusing on the character of Falstaff, who appears in multiple Shakespeare works). Touch Of Evil is an incredible film noir. His next film, The Magnificent Ambersons is fantastic, another masterpiece......until the last ten minutes, where the studio removed the original ending and shot a new ending that was ridiculous. Heartbreaking. The Stranger is the greatest Hitchcock movie that Hichcock never directed! lol. Great movie. Anyways, I could talk Orson Welles and Citizen Kane all day long. THANKS! Great reaction!!!!!
I'm glad you enjoyed it 😊 I'm amazed you watched it at 11 years old. I feel like this movie would be hard for kids to understand. Yes, although Welles was only 25, he played the older versions of himself well 👍🏻 Perhaps I'll check out his other movies and add them to my list. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and suggestions 😊
@@henryellow Most of those movies probably won't get high views, Henry, just as a warning! Touch Of Evil would get some, but the others probably not as much. I wouldn't want you to invest a lot of time into editing reactions for those and then not get many views!
I see, thanks for your concern 😊. I'll consider that. I can still choose to watch it, then put it on Patreon. The Patreon (full reaction version) requires less editing effort compared to the YT version, after all.
Here's a little detail that shows how strong that theme of love on one's own terms is embedded in this story: the aria that Susan's practicing is "Una Voce Poco Fa", from the comic opera "Barber of Seville" by Rossini (who had his 56th birthday this year, having been born on Leap Year Day in 1792). The aria is a declaration by Rosina, the heroine, that though she is usually docile and obedient, she will turn devil and formulate tricks when obstructed in love. Here's Beverly Sills giving the message to us as only a Brooklyn Soprano can: th-cam.com/video/SmEFfeYRWeI/w-d-xo.html (You can also tell by the power in Sills' voice that Susan's is not built for opera, and that Kane's ambitions for her are horribly unrealistic. One of the pities of this that her voice is sweet and gentle when singing, and that another style, more intimate and less stressful, might have made both of them feel happy and creatively fulfilled).
Sills' voice sounds more powerful (and from the diaphragm) compared to Susan's. Susan should have gone for another song that's more suitable for her voice. But of course she couldn't, because Kane chose the song for her. Perhaps there's also a subconscious reason why he chose that song for her. Thanks for sharing 😊
Great choice Henry - if you like Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten in a black and white movie you might want to see The Third Man, set in and film in Vienna immediately after WW2
@@henryellow Thanks! And if you like Orson Welles as a director Touch of Evil is very highly rated, with Welles also playing a key character. It's set on the Mexican/United States border and given what is going on there right now in 2024 its subplot has a new relevance...
@@henryellow Both excellent recommendations. A third great Welles film is Chimes at Midnight. It knits three Shakespeare plays together to make a film centered around the character Falstaff.
The movie also shows that having tremendous amounts of wealth does not bring more happiness. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that having more money doesn't mean more happiness. Money is merely a tool.
"Money will make you more of what you already are. If you're not a nice person, money's going to make you a despicable individual. If you're a good person, money's going to make you a better person." - Bob Proctor.
Kane came by money at a very early age. He was separated from his parents and thus never experienced a full, loving childhood. He showed his dissatisfaction and frustration with life by rebelling against Walter Thatcher at any given opportunity.
He had LOTS of money, but no love. He learned that money could buy things, and even people. He could get anything (and anyone) he wants, thus he never experienced any hardships (the type that an average person would experience, anyway). Whenever he faced any problems or challenges, he threw money at it.
His life experiences taught him that money could solve any problem. Unfortunately, money could not solve the problems of the heart. It could not buy Susan's love. It could surround Kane with "friends", but it would not dissolve his loneliness. It could help Kane build an opera house, but it would not make Susan want to sing. It could help Kane build a palace, but it would not fill the palace with warmth.
It's ironic because when Kane's mother sent him away, she told him, "You won't be lonely." Kane died a lonely death. Not a single friend was by his side when he breathed his last. The only thought that kept him company was "Rosebud". A short memory of better times, before he was cursed with wealth.
What a life... Would you call it a tragedy? I do not know.
------------------------------------------
During my second watch, I could see that Kane relates to Susan (on the first night they met).
Susan said that her mother wanted her to be a singer. Maybe that's why Kane provided her with music lessons and built an opera house for her.
After all, Kane never personally felt that he accomplished much. That's why he once said, "If I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man." So he wanted to see Susan succeed where he failed. He wanted to help her. Unfortunately, Susan didn't want to continue being a singer.
At the end, Kane relented and told her she didn't have to sing anymore. The main reason is because Susan tried to overdose. But I believe part of the reason is because he saw himself becoming Walter Thatcher, and Susan was rebelling against him (just like young Kane rebelled against Walter). I suppose Kane did feel a form of love for Susan, to do all those things for her. It's just that he insisted on doing things his way, and never stopped to think about Susan's feelings or how to make her feel loved. Not until it was too late and Susan left him.
------------------------------------------
A few scenes in the movie show the passage of time. Time flies, and it flies oh, so fast. One day, you're seven. The next, you're seventy.
Naturally, the time is sped up during the movie to show us the key events that happen in Kane's life. Even so, I can't help but think this, "Did Kane enjoy the times in between? Did he immerse himself in his day to day life? Did he ever find joy in the little things?" Only Kane would know...
I'm not even close to a quarter as wealthy as Kane, but I sure am glad that I still get to enjoy the mundaneness of my day to day life. If you're reading this, I hope you have a great day today, tomorrow, every day.
Citizen Kane is a masterpiece imo and I see more within every time I watch and your closing commentary was so excellent I learned more about it from you as well. It was Welles' very first film and his direction is mindblowing and with great assistance from Director of Photography Gregg Toland the film is unbelievably visually metaphorical in its storytelling and photographically unlike anything seen before. And the camera reflects the many ooints of views of each character. AndcBernard Herrmann's music, his first film score as well, is perfection. It's a tragedy, for sure but one that elevates an attentive audience with insights rather than devastate it with sadness.
This is rightly considered one of the best films of all time, but less for the story than for the innovative way it is told and for the cinematography and production methods which were previously unseen in mainstream movies and have made a lasting impact to this very day.
As much or more for story in my opinion. "Its surface is as much fun as any movie ever made. Its depths surpass understanding." -- Ebert on Citizen Kane
@@ead630 It is certainly a lot more multilayered than it might appear at first glance. Very canny screenplay.
The character of Charles Foster Kane was based in part on the newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst. Hearst was furious about how he was portrayed, and even moreso about the character of Susan, who was based on his mistress Marion Davies. Hearst refused to let the movie be advertised in his papers, and prohibited any mention of the film as well. He tried to destroy Orson Welles, and did serious damage to his career.
Xanadu was based on Hearst's home in San Simeon, California. The Hearst Castle, as it is now called, is operated as a museum by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Mercury was Orson Welles's radio theatre company. He hired his old ensemble for Citizen Kane, including Joseph Cotten, Everett Sloane, and Agnes Moorehead. They worked on radio contracts, so they were cheaper to hire. On the other hand, they could do long, unbroken scenes with ease, very important for this film.
it knocks me out that talking pictures were only about 11 years old when this film was made. my god! what a vision Orson Wells had! wowie wow. I was blown away the first time I saw this film, and it was in the early 1980's. I was 16 years old, and was watching a videotape of CITIZEN KANE. I wanted to see what the fuss was all about. and omg! I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing.
so many things. I was simply dazzled! that tracking shot from above into the bar with Susan in the storm. the reflection in the glasses of the nurse. the shadows. the newsreel sections. the sound plot-the echoes when Susan is doing the puzzle. when Charles begins tearing apart Susan's room. and then that final section with the reporters, their voices, into that shot of the sled and the name. the paint and bubbling up in the furnace. my mind was blown. this was stunning looking to me on a television screen in the early 1980's. let alone how this must have hit on a big screen in 1940. and this is still stunning looking today 2024.
sound had only been put to film for 11 years when CITIZEN KANE was released. This film and THE WIZARD OF OZ both knock me out in terms of the technical things in both films. there were some really talented geniuses involved in the early days of cinema. thank heavens films like this were preserved so that we can still see that vision today. great take on this major piece of art. thanks for posting!
The flame gas light. There is usually a wire cage around it. You should watch the movie, “Gaslight”.
Orson Welles was only 25 years old when he made this movie.
"Citizen Kane" is such an Important Film! There are Books written about it, Film Classes about it and Movies made about it! Not many Films have that kind of Interest or Honour! .... "GWTW", "Oz" or "Casablanca" maybe "2001"?
Joseph Cotton was performing on Broadway opposite Kathrine Hepburn in THE PHILADELPHIA STORY at the time and took a leave of absence from the production to appear in this movie.
Yay!! I'm so glad you watched this film. It's an amazing piece of art. Shine on ✨️ 💫 😊
Look closely in the projection room scene in the beginning and you will see Joseph Cotton and Everette Sloan ("Mr. Bernstein") sitting in the shadows with the other men.
Much of what is important about this film shot in 1940 is the cinematography, the lighting design, the set design, sound design and other technical innovations. Much of modern cinematic work comes out of techniques, equipment and stylistic choices created for this film. The scene showing Kane giving a speech far below the balcony where we as the audience are watching him, but both in perfect focus, was achieved by shooting two scenes and then combining them. The use of ceilings in the sets was new, and there were elements used even today and altho this was not a ‘Film Noir’, it includes innovations with shadows, and uses every hue from darkest black to grays to bright whites to highlight character, snd set mood and enhance tension. Many scenes include two entirely different focus points, one may be a reflection in a window, one may be far away, one may be in deep background but there is always a lot of layers and details to absorb in whatever is seen close-up, in middle ground and far back, all equally important to the story and development of the scene. Cameras in almost every scene are placed at unusual angles, heights and positions; very little in this film is what was usual or commonly done, even by the great filmmakers before 1940.
I do not like to throw the word, genius, around a lot. But at least in his chosen craft, Gregg Toland was a genius. The story is that Toland went to Welles and practically begged him to let him have the job. Because he wanted to film a movie for a director that had never done a film before.
Which was kind of genius in itself. As a forward thinking cinematographer, that is good as it gets. So, Welles, in his ignorance, just told Toland what he wanted and didn't try to do his job for him.
I saw it in the theater in the early 80s. The snowglobe just 'pops' when it first makes an appearance the night he meets Susan. It is the mirror shot, so essentially, he is looking at the snowglobe and talking to her at the same time. (made me wonder how much the snowglobe influenced his initial attraction to her) His use of the sets and deep focus was a game changer in the industry. And he was just getting better. He was still tinkering with the lens. And was still making deep focus improvements right up to his death at an all-too-soon 44.
I see. I did not even realize they combined two shots from different points of focus to create the scene. You know a lot about cinematography and the various set designs! 😊
If that was the case, then it was a smart move by Toland indeed. Creative juices can flow when you're not limited by your client's requirements.
I didn't even notice that the snowglobe was in Susan's room the night Kane met her! 😯
Thanks for sharing~ 😉
Based mainly on the life of William Randolph Hearst who ran several newspapers and was a pioneer in "yellow journalism" and also ran for public office (and served in the House of Representatives), also had a much younger mistress (Marion Davies, who was an actress, not an opera singer) whom he lived with in a sprawling estate: San Simeon in northern California.
This film used the be called 'the greatest film ever made'. Of course since that statement another 10,000 films have been made, giving this film some competition.
The fact that it's still very much in the conversation is a testament to its greatness
Excellent analysis, especially regarding why Kane was a hoarder.
Citizen Kane is a masterpiece, regarded as the best film ever for decades.
When asked the meaning of the screeching cockatoo Orson Welles replied, "To wake up the audience," in case they were getting groggy so late in the film.
Seriously? 😂
It scares those who are paying attention.
@henryellow, @Henryellow , well done. I don't know if you see these comments once the reaction is a couple of months old, but 1. This was the first musical score by Bernard Herrmann, who later composed the Hitchcock scores "Vertigo," "North by Northwest" and "Psycho." 2. I highly recommend you do another Orson Welles movie, "Touch of Evil" (director's cut). 3. This movie too repays repeat watching. It's amazing to watch with the sound off because you suddenly realize how complex all the shots are. 💙 #henryellow #Henryellow
I might already have "Touch of Evil" in my list. I'll check that later. Thanks for your thoughts and suggestion 😉
The story behind the movie is as interesting as the movie. And the rumor, believed to be true, to what, "Rosebud," really meant is enough of a reason to see why Hearst did all in his considerable power to crush the film, and Welles. Rosebud was rumored to be Hearst's affectionate nickname for Marion Davies' naughty bits. And while Welles captured a lot of Hearst and his personality, he really did Marion dirty. Welles seemed to have been a genuine fan of Marion and her abilities as an entertainer.
Well, the movie still made it till today...
The house Xanadu was based on, William Randolph Hearst's Hearst Castle, IS a museum now.
The words at the beginning are the opening lines of a famous poem finished in 1797:
“Kubla Khan - Or, a vision in a dream. A Fragment.
- by Samuel Taylor Coleridge
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure-dome decree…”
The word Xanadu ( emphasis on the first syllable “ZA…) was to describe an imaginary place dreamed by Coleridge but based on the palaces of Kubla Khan, who lived in the mid 1200’s and was the grandson of Genghis Khan.
Legend has it that Coleridge was in a fever of creation while writing it, was interrupted by someone at the door, popped out of his trance, and was never able to finish the poem (I've been there). Here's the poem: th-cam.com/video/pIpwMSrHBfU/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for sharing 😊
At the time, every member of the audience would have learned the poem in school and understood the reference.
Many great contributors to this film, including cinematographer Gregg Toland. Bernard Herrmann's film scores begin here and end with TAXI DRIVER. Welles demonstrated such great potential, but was seldom able to exploit the potential fully after this.
If you're watching classic movies like this, IMO you've really got your sh*t together...
~ Not crazy about Orson Welles, something about him just rubs me the wrong way, but this film has one of the greatest, most relatable endings of all time‼️‼️
My follow up tip after this one is the TV docu-drama RKO 281 from 1999 that tells the almost true story of how the movie was made, and very nearly not made. With Liev Schreiber as Orson Welles and James Cromwell as William Randolph Hearst (The real world Charles Foster Kane) who didn't approve of Citizen Kane.
Well, the last third of RKO 281 is apparently very close to the truth...
I see. I'll add it to my list then. Thanks for your suggestion 😊
Regarding Susan: To make her inapt singing believable, they hired a professional opera singer and asked her to sing out of her range. The film's iconic composer, Bernard Herrmann, made a complete aria - Salammbo - since no existing opera in history begins with an aria.
At first, I thought you meant that the actress (Dorothy Comingore) was an opera singer. Now I understand that her singing scenes were voiced over. Thanks for sharing 😊
Those quotation marks around "singer" is a mockery, signaling the reader to insert in their mind: "so called singer".
Wow, Henry, thanks for doing this one! Excellent analysis! I love that you guessed it a little earlier than most people do; certainly earlier than I did the first time I saw it (I was around 11 years old, admittedly!). I love this movie, it was a favorite of mine long before I ever knew that it held such a high place in film history. Every time I watch it I see something else in it. Orson Welles was only 25 when he made this movie! Wrote, directed and acted in this epic story. And it's his very first film! Amazing. You never think of him as 25 years old, you accept him at every age. There was so much controversy about this film that it pretty much destroyed his career. An excellent documentary about this is called "The Battle Over Citizen Kane", or you can just read about it. Orson Welles never had full control over a movie ever again; his films are brilliant, but they were almost always taken away from him and edited by someone else and usually mutilated. He did three incredible Shakespeare adaptations: Macbeth, Othello and Chimes At Midnight, which combines parts of different plays (focusing on the character of Falstaff, who appears in multiple Shakespeare works). Touch Of Evil is an incredible film noir. His next film, The Magnificent Ambersons is fantastic, another masterpiece......until the last ten minutes, where the studio removed the original ending and shot a new ending that was ridiculous. Heartbreaking. The Stranger is the greatest Hitchcock movie that Hichcock never directed! lol. Great movie. Anyways, I could talk Orson Welles and Citizen Kane all day long. THANKS! Great reaction!!!!!
I'm glad you enjoyed it 😊
I'm amazed you watched it at 11 years old. I feel like this movie would be hard for kids to understand.
Yes, although Welles was only 25, he played the older versions of himself well 👍🏻
Perhaps I'll check out his other movies and add them to my list. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and suggestions 😊
@@henryellow
Most of those movies probably won't get high views, Henry, just as a warning! Touch Of Evil would get some, but the others probably not as much. I wouldn't want you to invest a lot of time into editing reactions for those and then not get many views!
I see, thanks for your concern 😊. I'll consider that. I can still choose to watch it, then put it on Patreon. The Patreon (full reaction version) requires less editing effort compared to the YT version, after all.
Here's a little detail that shows how strong that theme of love on one's own terms is embedded in this story: the aria that Susan's practicing is "Una Voce Poco Fa", from the comic opera "Barber of Seville" by Rossini (who had his 56th birthday this year, having been born on Leap Year Day in 1792). The aria is a declaration by Rosina, the heroine, that though she is usually docile and obedient, she will turn devil and formulate tricks when obstructed in love. Here's Beverly Sills giving the message to us as only a Brooklyn Soprano can: th-cam.com/video/SmEFfeYRWeI/w-d-xo.html (You can also tell by the power in Sills' voice that Susan's is not built for opera, and that Kane's ambitions for her are horribly unrealistic. One of the pities of this that her voice is sweet and gentle when singing, and that another style, more intimate and less stressful, might have made both of them feel happy and creatively fulfilled).
Good point.
Sills' voice sounds more powerful (and from the diaphragm) compared to Susan's. Susan should have gone for another song that's more suitable for her voice. But of course she couldn't, because Kane chose the song for her. Perhaps there's also a subconscious reason why he chose that song for her.
Thanks for sharing 😊
I highly recommend the film "The Thief of Bagdad" from 1940 for a reaction!
I'll add it to my list. Thanks for recommending! 😊
Great choice Henry - if you like Orson Welles and Joseph Cotten in a black and white movie you might want to see The Third Man, set in and film in Vienna immediately after WW2
I'll add that one to my list. Thanks for your suggestion 😊
@@henryellow Thanks! And if you like Orson Welles as a director Touch of Evil is very highly rated, with Welles also playing a key character. It's set on the Mexican/United States border and given what is going on there right now in 2024 its subplot has a new relevance...
Ah, I see. Another comment has mentioned Touch of Evil too 😉
@@henryellow Both excellent recommendations. A third great Welles film is Chimes at Midnight. It knits three Shakespeare plays together to make a film centered around the character Falstaff.
@@matthewzuckerman6267 Chimes at Midnight is on my list too 😊
The Third Man
I'll add it to my list. Thanks for suggesting 😊
Maybe you are finally done with the Hitchcock ones. I will watch this one tomorrow.