The "Citizen Kane" comparison and why it is garbage
When you hear that something is the “Citizen Kane of its medium,” or that a movie such as "The Social Network" is the “next Citizen Kane,” what does that mean to you? Does it mean it’s good? Popular? Trailblazing?
You don’t know because the phrase has essentially lost all meaning in today’s world. It’s just the latest trick in a reviewer’s bag of ever-intensifying, exaggerated adjectives. The word “great” just doesn’t cut it anymore.
But I take offense to this phrase in particular because instead of just being another superfluous synonym, it’s being used in all sorts of incorrect -- or just uniformed -- context.
Show of hands, who here has actually seen Citizen Kane? Yeah, that’s what I thought. For those of you unfamiliar with the movie, let me break it down for you (I figure 70 years is past the statute of limitations for spoilers):
Citizen Kane focuses on the life of Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper mogul who dies at the beginning of the film. The last thing he spoke was simply, “Rosebud.” A reporter for one of Kane’s numerous papers is tasked with finding out exactly what Kane’s final word means. This entails interviewing all of Kane’s closest friends and enemies, whose stories are presented through flashbacks.
Kane is portrayed differently by each of the interviewees, and the audience is left to mull over Kane’s true character.
And "Rosebud"? In the last scene, it’s revealed "Rosebud" was the name of Kane’s sled during childhood, the last time he was truly happy.
While the story was certainly interesting, the real star here was Orson Welles and his innovative cinematography and effects. His use of deep focus -- a camera trick that allowed the entire shot to be in focus rather than just the foreground or background -- and use of miniatures had a major impact on film and was a catalyst to modern filmmaking.
"The Social Network" does nothing in the way of new camera techniques. Its effects are not daring. The most complex effect it employs is having the same actor play two people in the same room, something we had in 1998 with the re-make of "The Parent Trap" -- remember when you thought Lindsay Lohan was cute and not on cocaine?
But if you are dead set on comparing "The Social Network" to "Citizen Kane," here is something that actually makes the comparison work:
Both movies are about media moguls who made a lot of enemies on their way to the top. Those moguls, William Randolph Hearst for "Citizen Kane" and Mark Zukerberg for "The Social Network" were both less than pleased with their respective exaggerated biographies.
Other than that, there’s really very little overlap. "Citizen Kane" didn’t even make all its money back. It was deemed a failure at the box office only received one Oscar and didn’t receive its astronomical renown until it hit French theaters and American television. Last time I checked, "The Social Network" was raking in a nice bit of dough and has been receiving a ton of Oscar talk.
Comparisons are wonderful. They allow us to quickly categorize things and get our points across succinctly and efficiently. But let’s give the references to a 70-year-old movie no one has ever seen a rest.
