Style and Meaning in Citizen Kane

Abstract According To Orson Welles ‘s one-time producer John Houseman, Welles was “at heart a magician, whose particular talent [lay] not so much in his creative imagination (which is considerable) as in his proven ability to stretch the familiar elements of theatrical effect far beyond their normal point of tension.” ‘ Left-handed as the compliment may seem, Welles was, among other things, a professional magician (“You know an awful lot of tricks,” Susan Alexander says to Charles Foster Kane during their first meeting, as he casts shadows on the wall to amuse her. “You ‘re not a professional magician, are your”), and his movies delight in visible trickery. In Citizen Kane, for example, the camera moves in to a close-up of a group photograph of the Chronicle staff while Kane talks about what good men they are; suddenly Kane walks right into the photo, and as the camera pulls back from the assembled journalists we find ourselves at an Inquirer party six years later. Such moments draw upon a cinema of plea-Citizen Kane enjoyed a spectacular critical reception. American novelist John O ‘Hara, writing for Time magazine, said quite simply that it was the best motion picture he had ever seen. ‘ Other serious reviewers in this country didn ‘t debate whether or not it was unusually good, but whether or not it was a great, even revolutionary, achievement. Meanwhile, Kane was the subject of considerable controversy in Hollywood; it was nominated for nine Academy Awards but received only one, for best original screenplay by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles, who were booed by detractors at the award ceremony.