Citizen Kane

After watching Citizen Kane, it was clear why when it first came out in the box office in 1941 - it failed miserbaly, and then why today it is considered one of the greatest American films ever made. By just reading how different those two reviews are, it's hard to see that one movie can accomodate for both. I could tell that Citizen Kane coming out in theaters would not be that popular because if audiences watched it and just glazed over the surface of the film - wanting it to be entertaining but not appreciating little details - they would definately be dissapointed. However movie critics and filmmakers looking back on the film - by looking closely could notice the good use of symbols, themes, camera movements, lighting and characterization.
One thing i noticed after discussing the film was how Orson Welles used make-up, costume, and setting to personify certain ideas. For example the opera house and everything associated with it was so vibrant, intense, and unrealistically glamorous. The same was with the palace that Kane bought at the end of the movie - unrealistcally thrilling. The look of those two examples in the film can be correlated with the unrealistic aspect in the plot of the movie at those two parts - which i found interesting. Kane wanted the opera house and his wife to be a great success but in reality that would never happen. The palace is just an example of Kane and Susan living a lie because Susan wanted a divorce/wanted to move out of the house, and Kane was unhappy - life was weighing down on him. It's almost like Kane wanted so much for his life to be happy that he had to put on the act with the gigantic palace and everything. I just thought it was interesting how mise-en-scene (if you look closely) correlates with aspects of the plot. That, to me, is a sign of great filmmaking if looking closely like that at a film draws attention to new things. Movies where everything just lies out on the surface may be entertaining - but may not pass the test of time.