I'm new to the community and there's something I'd like to ask anyone who's still hanging around here. Hopefully we can get a bit of discussion going.I wanted to ask if you think that Citizen Kane is worth the price paid for it. Meaning of course, is having Kane worth losing all the pictures Orson could have made if he hadn't had some of the most powerful people in Hollywood after his blood right from his film début? Or is it impossible to say?Would he have been able to hang on to his contract and make lucrative films even without the troubles with CK?
Of course the powers theory is something of an oversimplification, but things might have turned out differently in his career if CK had made big money its first time out (validating him), and from what I've read, without Hearst's efforts to suppress the film it probably would have. I think CK's "failure" was the biggest stumbling block, if not the first, between Orson and a well-funded career. If he'd brought in the money they'd hoped for when they signed him, they'd probably have been more forgiving of his character. Once it was proven to deliver, they'd be harder pressed to begrudge him his way.You've made me think of something else, though. Say he would have been able to make at least a few more films with total control and studio budgets if not for Kane. Would he be recognised the same way now without that struggle? Is it a sort of Titanic-like situation; if not for the element of tragedy people wouldn't remember or appreciate the value of what was "lost". The story of the young, fresh-faced artist's ultimate victory over the old boy's club might be a key part of CK's nigh-unanimous acclaim, because people tend to baulk more the more people tell them something is great. That underdog element might be the thing which makes CK's greatness palatable. Thoughts?(I'm tired and trying to write and essay, so apologies if this doesn't make any sense. Also; you're welcome! I'm glad people are replying. :D)