It’s a common expression: to be the Citizen Kane of something. It is used to describe something that is considered the best in its field by a majority consensus. Yet with the recently published Sight and Sound poll, Citizen Kane is no longer the Citizen Kane of its field, surpassed by Hitchcock’s thriller Vertigo. The poll consists of 846 top ten lists by eminent film critics and is conducted every ten years. Remarkably, Citizen Kane has been top since 1962 and, usually, by some margin too. So what does this surprising result show about the way film has developed since the 2002 poll? Well, not a lot really. The results show more about the trends of film criticism rather than a serious analysis of the films themselves.
Every film critic will have a different opinion over whether Vertigo is indeed better than Kane or not. I, for one, don’t think Vertigo is in any way a match for the sheer ingenuity of Orson Welles’ debut, with its innovative structure going backwards and forwards in time, its deep focus cinematography, the magnetic energy of Welles’ performance or its memorable lines and images. Vertigo was haunting and it stays with the viewer for a long time afterwards but it isn’t the perfect film like Kane is. For one, the plot resembles something even Aristophanes would have found incredulous. Surely James Stewart would recognise his wife and so avoid all that unnecessary drama in the second half of the film? Vertigo probably didn’t win because it was the best but because it is a picture that critics need at this point in 2012.
Perhaps the most important reason for it winning is the man behind the camera, Alfred Hitchcock. Overlooked in his own time, the ‘Master of Suspense’ never won an Oscar, as he was believed to be too mainstream. It is only recently that opinions of his films have changed and he has been given the credit as an artist that he rightly deserves. With Vertigo, Hitchcock has an acknowledged masterpiece that critics can vote for if they want the director to be credited, rather than the film itself. Though I prefer Rear Window, Notorious, Psycho, North by Northwest, The 39 Steps, Rebecca, Dial M For Murder and Strangers on a Train, if I wanted Hitchcock’s name on the list I would be tempted to just vote for Vertigo to ensure his name would be credited, as I know other critics would vote for it too. This is a reason why Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin have been overlooked in these polls. They both have at least two acknowledged masterpieces that could potentially split the vote of the critics who decide on their ten.
T
he most overlooked aspect of this list is what it shows about film criticism itself. Laura Mulvey, the famous film critic said of the list, “It would be really boring if Kane won again. Not because I have doubts about the film but it would be interesting if things changed.” I find this argument to be a little irritating. It seems that the list isn’t being used as a serious investigation into the general consensus of what the best films are but an exercise in advertising for that forgotten skill; film criticism. As David Thomson, another film critic, said last week, “it’s a little bit of an embarrassment that the best film of all time is now 71 years old.” Maybe that ‘Citizen Kane of such and such’ cliché has genuinely troubled these critics. Maybe they took it personally that people think there is only one contender for the title of best film. Rather than being accused of a lack of imagination and by voting for Kane as a kneejerk, they would rather sponsor a new contender for the crown, even if it cannot compete with the skill of the reigning champion. Nick James, the Sight and Sound editor, was happy that his magazine would be making headlines for this surprising result, explaining the result by arguing “Kane had become a kind of dated object” and that the technologies have moved on too far for it to retain its role as the best film. This also irked me because Citizen Kane remains the most influential film of all time and saying it’s dated is like accusing the Beatles of being old fashioned for not using synthesizers.
Though despite everything I’ve said, this is just one person’s opinion. Try as I may to convince you that Citizen Kane remains the best film, it is undeniable that some people just don’t love the film and feel less inclined to vote for it. Of course, the list is revealing for reasons other than just the backlash against Kane. The most recent film is 2001: A Space Odyssey from 1968, and it’s rather worrying no film of the last 44 years was judged worthy enough of inclusion. Can we accuse the critics of being Luddite or just being brutally honest with the state of films today?
I suppose the list has achieved its aims though, as it’s got people talking about film. Sight and Sound even trended on twitter, with people saying “I just don’t see what’s so great about Vertigo” and others chiming in “Thank God Citizen Kane has been knocked back. Thought it was overrated.” This best film list, despite being manipulated by film critics praying for a different result, has actually ignited a serious conversation into film analysis and criticism and that can never be a bad thing.
I think Mulvey’s point that it’d be nice to see a change in the list was referring more broadly to the fact that all the films are now considerably dated, not to undermine their greatness, of course.
As much as I am an appreciator of classic American cinema, these lists often deny modern cinema a place. I had nothing but applause for Ebert, a man I usually wouldn’t give time nor money to, when he included Tree of Life in his top ten films of all time (emphasis on “of all time”). The hardcore critics and academics seem to pay attention to modern cinema until it comes to delivering their “top list”, and fall back on the classics.
Still, this is only one list, and the repercussions of it will be minimal. I doubt Citizen Kane will be knocked off the AFI list or even the theyshootpictures.com list, an undoubtedly bigger survey than either AFI’s or Sight and Sound’s compilation.
It all adds to the preposterous act that is forming a list of “best films”. It’s ludicrous, how do you even compare genres of films, let alone eras and countries? When was the last time you saw credible literary critics ranking their favourite books, or a list published by a literary journal of the top ten books ever written. There would be outrage and criticism, as no doubt it would have the same outcome, the canonical classics would dominate it: Ancient Greece, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, and Ulysses.
Saying this, I prefer Vertigo to Citizen Kane. I’m a Hitchcock fanboy. And as for your problem with the plot, it comes secondary to the themes of psychological distress and obsession at this point in the film. And she isn’t his wife, otherwise that would be something to think twice about.
I agree with you on most points there. The act of making a best film list is, of course, preposterous because it’s ver difficult to compare films in different genres and eras and movements. However, I like these lists because they are a gateway for people to see some of the classics if they are not the most committed movie goer and don’t know much about the old greats. That’s how I came to see a lot of these films.
Another point I would have liked to have made in the article is the lack of comedies in these lists. Considering how hard it is to get a comedy right, they deserve far more respect when they are pulled off. I would loved to have seen ‘His Girl Friday’ on the list, for example.
Also, if you take a look at the directors top 10, there are far more modern films. I was very glad to see Taxi Driver on the list, as well as the Godfather. I think with film criticism, unlike with music criticism, it takes a long time for a film to gain status. The most modern films on the list were ‘In the Mood For Love’ and ‘Mulholland Drive’, and I think we will see at least one of those in 2022.
And you’re right about the wife. That is clumsy writing on my part. I meant Elster’s wife and the fact that Judy is the same person as before.