Film ๐ŸŽฅ & Media Studies: Introduction To Film: Citizen Kane (1941) ๐ŸŽž๏ธ ๐ŸŽฅ ๐ŸŽž๏ธ ๐ŸŽฅ ๐ŸŽž๏ธ ๐ŸŽฅ ๐ŸŽž๏ธ ๐ŸŽฅ ๐ŸŽž๏ธ ๐ŸŽฅ ๐ŸŽž๏ธ ๐ŸŽฅ

Film
Theatrical release poster for Citizen Kane (RKO Pictures, 1941) was one of the most controversial and publicized films of the first half of the 20th century. For many decades it has been canonized as the โ€œgreatestโ€ film of all time. The epic production was based on the life of media mogul William Randolph Hearst (1863-1951). His huge newspaper ๐Ÿ“ฐ chain was prominent (and also widely resented) for its heavy influence on public opinion regarding many political and social issues. (Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons)

While rummaging through my archives I found more of my coursework from ASU that I thought was irretrievably lost. This was from my very first film & media class going all the way back to 2007, โ€œIntroduction To Filmโ€ and revived memories of so much I hadnโ€™t thought about for nearly two decades! One of the topics we studied was titled โ€œCanons??โ€ and our professor wanted the class to research this term and reach a conclusion as to whether or not it should be applied to film studies.

Since my knowledge of what a canon was supposed to be was pretty vague, I was curious to research the term further for this assignment. The only thing that originally came to mind was something to do with the Catholic Church and itโ€™s hierarchy deciding who was qualified for sainthood according to Catholic teachings. Therefore, the word canon implied something quite serious and significant and somehow seemed inappropriate to apply towards film studies. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the best definition of โ€œcanonโ€ is โ€œa regulation or dogma decreed by a church council.โ€

Dictionary.com also defines canon more specifically by stating it as โ€œa collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.โ€ However, by taking this class I quickly learned that the term also applied well to the arts (such as movies) where it refers to an official storyline from the original author, separating it from something merely derivative. Here is what I wrote then in our first lesson about canons for the class discussion e-board:

โ€œCanonization is usually first associated with the Catholic Church, such as the canonization of certain spectacular and accomplished individuals, the people who become saints according to Catholic beliefs? I think this is the case? As far as films or any other art work is concerned, this term seems rather extreme (like Catholicism!). The chapter mentions that once something is canonized the downside is that we are likely to place it on a pedestal and simply revere it, and not be able to think critically and level-headed enough about it. It seems typically human to go overboard in this way.โ€

โ€œAnything can be hyped and lauded enough by critics or the news media and blow things way out of proportion. Even though there are some things about Citizen Kane that are outstanding, can it or any other single film really be considered the greatest of all time? Being the โ€œgreatestโ€ is a huge amount of weight to sustain. Besides, once attaining the number one status โ€” eventually thereโ€™s no where to go but down!โ€

A publicity still from Citizen Kane. It was directed and produced by the visionary Orson Welles (who also starred) after his successful, but infamous radio ๐Ÿ“ป broadcast of War Of The Worlds in 1938. Although the film is justly acclaimed for its innovative cinematography and editing techniques, whether it should be considered the greatest film ๐ŸŽž๏ธ ever made is still questionable. (Photo Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Since Citizen Kane is continuously lionized by critics as one of the greatest films ever made โ€” and many of them place it at the top of a relatively short list, I commented further about it and wrote this for a follow-up e-board post:

โ€œSometimes Iโ€™m curious about the exact motivations behind why critics and scholars revere certain films so much. With Citizen Kane I cannot help but think that much of the reasoning has to do more with the controversy which has surrounded it than with the overall artistic merits. If this story had not been such a thinly veiled attack on someone as powerful and wealthy as William Randolph Hearst (and his movie star mistress Marion Davies) would there have been such attention focused on it during the 1940s? Would Citizen Kane still be so influential and discussed seven decades later?โ€ Critics and scholars both then and today were probably very bitter and resentful over the censorship and strong arm tactics used to prevent this movie from reaching a much broader audience โ€” and I certainly donโ€™t blame them! But this goes right back to my opening statement.โ€

All these years later I still believe what I wrote then. Regardless of what elitist critics and scholars may expound on regarding โ€œcanonizationโ€ of certain high profile films โ€” these are still opinions and they are subjective at best. Also, since Citizen Kane is an American made film there is little doubt that other countries having film industries of their own with different cultural sensibilities have their own ideas as to what films are fit for canonization.

Note ๐Ÿ“: Although Citizen Kane was nominated for an impressive nine Academy Awards, it collected the statuette only for Best Writing โœ๏ธ (Original Screenplay)