Film review: Citizen Kane (1941)

The first time this film entered my consciousness was probably about 1975 when I was given a Peanuts Silver Jubilee collection, which contained this number:

I now finally understand Linus's distress, because that's about as major a spoiler as you could imagine.  But it's a bit of a cheap stunt for a film that's supposed to be up there in the pantheon of greatest ever.  (And I don't get it: is it just child psychology?  Freudianism seemed to be in the air in mid-century Hollywood (e.g., Spellbound) so is it just the idea that his character was formed by the trauma of being sent away to boarding school?  Or is it just the first thing that was taken from him?  Or did he love it because it was what he used to punch the resented banker in the gut?  Could he have turned out better?  He certainly seemed to think so given what he said about how he could've been great if he hadn't've been rich.)  Another thing I need explaining: why does this film have such a great reputation?  I mean, some films with that kind of reputation, you get it when you see them - Seven Samurai, Seventh Seal, Night of the Hunter - but this one...  I mean, Welles is great.  He ages incredibly convincingly (you completely forget that he was 25 when he made this - which is also a testament to great makeup), there are very memorable lines ("You're too old to still call me Mr. Thatcher" "You're too old to be called anything else") delivered perfectly.  The cinematography is amazing.  And I know enough to know that some shots, like ones that pass through skylights into rooms, required cutting edge special effects... But.  I just don't care enough.  Did one have to know all about Hearst to get what was being parodied?  (Does knowing Soviet politics improve Animal Farm?)  Or does one have to care deeply about the lives of the rich and powerful?  It occurred to me that an awful lot of the films of the 30's were about the Rich, which always struck me as odd, given the depression, but maybe there's a parallel with fairy stories always being about royalty, despite being the currency of the peasantry.  But the 40's is suddenly about Film Noir, with seedy people doing seedy things, and this seems very fin de siècle.  Maybe I should've seen it in my teens when I went through a Gatsby phase, and then I could have seen the tragedy.  As it was, the fact that Kane shot himself in the foot and never got to be Governor because of a (comparatively chaste) affair with his failed singer girlfriend just doesn't move me.  I imagine a large part of its greatness is something you can only appreciate if you go to film school and learn the names of the techniques it pioneered.  And, as I said, I can certainly appreciate the many amazing set pieces.

Now I think about it, I think the problem is the Hamlet problem: because it's been so influential, it looks hackneyed, like Hamlet sounding like a string of quotes. But really we've just encountered the knock-offs first. And it is amazing that everyone in it was in a film for the first time, even Joseph Cotton.