My vote for the most over-rated movie of all time.

 I grew up in a little suburban town, ten miles west of Detroit, called Berkley, and we had a great movie theater there.  It was named after our town, of course. The Berkley Movie theater was one of those cinemas that would show movies at a discount.  These were movies that had been out long after their initiate releases.  I remember as a boy, seeing Jaws, the original blockbuster summer movie, when it was closer to the fall than that summer.  It was still pretty scary to see it ,even though the chance of being eaten by a great white was long over, due to the closing of Michigan's beaches.  ( Not that the Great Lakes are known for their fresh water sharks... )

The Berkley theater was only two blocks from where I lived, so I could go with my parents and friends almost anytime I wanted to, to see what was there.  Because of this, I saw a LOT of movies, and developed a bit of a critical eye.  I have great memories of arguing with my friends, in the school cafeteria, over what was good and what was bad about this or that movie.   I still cherish the memory of one friend, who once threw butter at me for daring to say that The Return of the Jedi was weak.

So, in keeping with this tread and at the risk of repeating my unfortunate habit of having Land O Lakes hurled at my head, I now offer my choice for most over-rated movie of all time!

 Citizen Kane.  A RKO Radio Picture.  Directed by Orson Welles.  Written by Herman J. Mankiewicz.

I'll never understand why this movie is so revered by so many film critics as being the greatest movie of all time.  Why, there is such an interest in the life and death of an arrogant, adulterous, capitalist pig like Charles Foster Kane?  There's nothing about this guy that I like or find intriguing.  There are a few moments that offer some good moments for me - The sequence of watching Kane's marriage at it's chatty, happy beginning to it's dreadfully silent demise, all around a breakfast table, is good.  It rings of truth and pain.  The whole opera affair with Kane's mistress is fun.  I like the long shot of showing how enormously high the theater is that Kane has built for his new wife, only to be given a sour look on the faces of workmen stationed at the top of the theater arch, when they hear her singing for the first time.  That's top notch film-work.  But to me, for every positive thing about Kane, there are at least, three or four things I can't get around.

One, it's too dark.  I can barely make out who's talking to whom, in most of the scenes.

Two, it's hard to hear!  I don't know what Welles was doing when he directed this thing or what he was hoping to achieve, but people are constantly over-lapping on each other whenever they're speaking and it's a terrible distraction to what's going on in the scene.

Three, the whole idea that " Rosebud " is Kane's lost childhood seem anti-climax to me, because for the whole film, all we see is Kane acting like a child for the most part!  He throws wild parties at work. He's constantly carrying on with a variety of different women at all times of his life. He bores easily and is always looking for distraction,  He never has a truly revealing " one to one " moment with anyone in the film.  He never admits mistakes.  He pushes his friends to their breaking point.  His taste is crass ( one look at his grand mansion shows that readily. )  Most of the time, I was waiting to see someone to really take him to task for his behavior.  No one does.  The closest thing to that is the cutting theater review by Kane's friend and theater critic, played by Joseph Cotton, on Kane's 2nd wife, the deaf-toned Susan played by Dorothy Comingore.   To me, " Rosebud " was pretty much meaningless when the focal character spends most of his adult life trying to extend his childhood for as long as he can.

Four, there's a common American belief buried in the myths of men like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Ben Franklin, that from poverty will come the fortitude of greatness when the impoverished child reaches adulthood.  It's a strange, almost neurotic idea that a poor childhood is better than a rich one, for a child experiencing acute want will grow to become a man driven to succeed.  It can be true, and it does lend itself the stuff of good drama, but to say that Kane's being taken for his poor boyhood to a more lavished lifestyle would only produce a twisted, morally - bankrupt individual is utter nonsense.

Bill Clinton, while he was still in office, did a interview with the famed film critic, Roger Ebert.  They discussed their mutual love of cinema.  During the interview, President Clinton expressed his concern for the movie Fight Club, which had just been released that year.  He was worried that this movie might be giving a wrong message to the generation of young men highlighted in this film.  He thought the idea that men would brutally fight with each other as a way to find their lost masculinity, due to the supposed realization that there was no great war to fight or economic depression to define them, was wrong.  He mentioned there were many causes true and right to fight for; the struggle against poverty, social inequality, urban renewal.  These are causes for men to do, both physically and mentally, that could readily service as their test of prowess.  I felt the same way about Citizen Kane.  I couldn't help but wonder why with all his wealth, resources, and education he could not find some measure of happiness, or some worthy task to challenge him?  He was socially conscience.  It's clearly shown in the scene where Kane writes his promise to his reading public that he would direct his newspaper to address any civil concerns or dangers.  He pledges himself and his paper to moral justice and to the pursuit of truth.  It's a scene that shows great promise,but very soon after this, Kane is tossing away any chance to act on this.  Then to try to assert this is due to an unhappy childhood bought on by wealth?  It comes off like a cheat to me.

There have been movies about unwanted wealth.  The comedy Arthur, immediately comes to mind.  Here it's clearly shown that despite all the perks brought on for Arthur due to his riches,  he is unhappy.  But instead of following in the same path as Kane and his narcissism, Arthur does reach out.  He's charming and self-effacing.  He's concerned for others.  He has his faults but unlike Kane, we cheer for Arthur when he rises to meet his challenges with his particular quirky sense of humor.

I think that's what I find most depressing about Kane.  It has almost no sense of humor.  Kane is a boor and bore.  He carries on like no one is around.  He thinks he's being funny, when he really is just being cruel.  I can't relate to him or care about him.  If there had been one moment in Kane's life where he really had to deal with life on it's harsh terms, like a death of a child, or real financial strife, maybe I could have muster up some pity or interest, but in the end.  I was really glad he was dead.

( The Theater of my Childhood - The Berkley Theater. )