Why filmmakers steal from Citizen Kane 

One revolutionary element you didn't explore was Welles' use of "worldizing" the audio (long before Walter Murch coined the term) much in the same way he did with his radio shows. As the talkie was only a dozen years old, most directors only focused on fidelity of dialogue and an unobtrusive score, with no mind paid to acoustics, reverberation, echo, and foley. By producing soundscapes realistically, Welles had already tricked audiences into believing in an alien invasion with a live audio-performance. And then with all the resources at his disposal, he applied this technique to Cinema. And much of Citizen Kane actually still works without the accompanying image. It could be argued that movies at that point were 50% image and 25% sound, and after Citizen Kane (and Star Wars many years later) that equation would tip more liberally towards sound. As it is now, people will overlook an inferior image but won't forgive unintelligible dialogue or a lousy soundtrack (25% image and 75% sound).

I was lucky enough to see this in the cinema when it was reprinted for DVD. Great films need to be seen in the cinema; it moves them to a whole other level.

2:29 in this case it wasn't a split diopter. They really filmed the focused table and the characters on different takes and masked them togheter after. Just one of many technical qualities that proove the marksmanship of the filmmakers

Some films are so forgettable that you couldn't tell someone what happened straight after. Citizen Kane is burned in my memory forever.

I own a copy of CK, but still didn't understand why it's considered so great until your breakdown here; thanks!

My favorite note about the making of this film is that to replicate the "degraded news footage" look, the editor dragged the *negative* of the film up and down the rko studio stairs. That editor went on to become a noteworthy director himself, Robert Wise. Honestly he probably could be said to have had more success as a director than Welles did.

Criteria for a good film is that every scene should contain something noteworthy or that you haven't quite seen before. Citizen Kane was the first to do this perfectly.

Brilliant commentary. You always shed light on the value of the topics you cover. Such as with "Citizen Kane", you revive it's presence in our memories causing us - or at least me - to want to watch it again. So that we too can relive its masterful and artful storytelling. And you highlight how such films as "Citizen Kane" that although didn't succeed financially at their initial release would later become considered classics. Much like "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Blade Runner", where both films were heavily criticized only to later become considered classics in their own right. Honestly, your film commentaries should be viewed by all up and coming filmmakers, and long time filmmakers.

Great video as always! Well, having grown up in the 1970s, I think I have some idea about how such a film could be made in 1940/41. Back in the day, filmmaking (and all other arts and crafts) was entirely linked to the hardware. Your camera was not just a box containing software, that is part of a network. You knew the inner workings, nothing was virtual. You were "behind the curtain" of the "Great And Powerful OZ". It was all "steam and rivets". I was lucky enough to work small jobs at the TV station, when news were still shot on 16mm film on an Arri 16 S or BL, loaded on location in a dark bag by an experienced guy who did it perfectly while engaging in an unrelated conversation. Was it better? No. Was it more satifying because eveyone had a sense of accomplishent? Yes. I think that is the key to understanding how a movie like this could be made with a huge Mitchell BNC camera - as opposed to super lightweight remote controlled cameras with conneted high resolution monitors, where a client provides (not always encouraging) input from thousands of miles away. [edited for grammar errors]

When you are talking about the split diopter lenses, the shots you're showing were combined using an optical printer.

Great analysis! I am really curious to watch Citizen Kane now :)

Good video man, can you link your list with; ‘100 films to see before you die’ ?

R.I.P. Orson Welles

Following the narrative hides the beauty of shot. The review motivates to review ) Thank you

"Rosebud." Just the thought of it fills me with sadness and nostalgia. It's what we lose from times gone by. Very Proustian.

Welles did what he did because no one said he couldn't - meaning, no one had thought to try the things he did. He made a film no one would have thought possible. It's an incredible film, and has much to say (not just in technical terms), even today. Nice analysis - thanks!

Was just thinking about this film yesterday. Now your video has just popped up haha

He was a truly jolly man....watched his 1970 Dick Cavett interview... Very good overview and never watch it myself that I recall...have to now, thxs

Wherever you place the camera or move it while filming, you're really moving the audience.

please keep creating this series.

Great analysis👍

Like your channel and this view of Kane. Dare I suggest your background music detracts.

New lesson in film school!!!

An excellent rundown of what makes this movie great.

Love your videos!

i very much respect the cinematography of this movie, i just dont care about the actual story and found it very boring. seen it once and have no urge to ever watch it again. maybe im not that much of a cineast as i thought because i think that of many movies nowadays. its like tron, pretty to look at and nothing much else. a tech demo reel.

Thanks good sir.

Did Sergio Leone use deep focus ??

You metion that every frame is a painting , i love the RU-vid Channel with this name , i miss alot , you are linda filling that gap

Thanks for the awesome channel

Yep. What he said.

Wheres the top 100 list?

This film definitely checks off all your criteria except for entertainment - I personally don't believe this film can be as emotionally effectively/ jolting as say, The Godfather. Yes I've seen both.

If citzen Kane is the number 2 of your 1000 filme list, i was gessing the First one must be some Kurosawa, soo i went to find your list , hahahah Kurosawa 1 !!

Because it’s the greatest

too bad you didn't make #3 Entertainment Art as your criteria

"Rosebud".

Why the author ignoring the influence of Soviet cinema?

Best part of the film is when it ends

"...not very gender neutral of him..." Oof

A boring film about a sled, for its time it redefined how was filmmaking was done and evolved it to the next level but it doesn't hold up in relation to even being interesting