Editing Citizen Kane (section)

===Contemporary response===
Reviews fell into three categories: great, mixed, and negative. The day following the premiere of ''Citizen Kane'', ''[[The New York Times]]'' critic [[Bosley Crowther]] wrote that "it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood... Count on Mr. Welles: he doesn't do things by halves.&nbsp;... Upon the screen he discovered an area large enough for his expansive whims to have free play. And the consequence is that he has made a picture of tremendous and overpowering scope, not in physical extent so much as in its rapid and graphic rotation of thoughts. Mr. Welles has put upon the screen a motion picture that really moves".<ref name="crowther19410502">{{Cite news |last=Crowther |first=Bosley |author-link=Bosley Crowther |date=May 2, 1941 |title=Orson Welles's Controversial 'Citizen Kane' Proves a Sensational Film at Palace |page=25 |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/106087578/22FE7A725A824D3BPQ/}}</ref>

''[[The Washington Post]]'' called it "one of the most important films in the history" of filmmaking.<ref>Bell, Nelson B. (May 17, 1941).[https://www.proquest.com/docview/151465622/22FE7A725A824D3BPQ/ ''Citizen Kane'', at Keith's, Stamps Welles a Genius: Simple Biographical Story Distinguished By Productional Values That Makes It a Revolutionary Contribution to the Cinema]". ''[[The Washington Post]]''. p. 14.</ref> ''[[The Washington Evening Star]]'' said Welles was a genius who created "a superbly dramatic biography of another genius" and "a picture that is revolutionary".<ref>Carmody, Jay. "Mr Welles' ''Citizen Kane'' Was Well Worth the Wait: His Portrait of a Spectacular Eccentric Is Superbly Made Screen Entertainment, And a Striking One-Man Exploit", ''[[The Washington Evening Star]]'', May 17, 1941, p. B16.</ref> ''[[New York Daily News]]'' critic Kate Cameron called it "one of the most interesting and technically superior films that has ever come out of a Hollywood studio".<ref name="Cameron">{{cite news |last=Cameron |first=Kate |title=Citizen Kane |newspaper=[[Daily News (New York)|New York Daily-News]] |date=May 2, 1941}}</ref> ''[[New York World-Telegram]]'' critic William Boehnel said that the film was "staggering and belongs at once among the greatest screen achievements".<ref name="Boehnel">{{cite news |last=Boehnel |first=William |title=Citizen Kane |publisher=[[New York World-Telegram]] |date=May 2, 1941}}</ref> ''Time'' magazine wrote that "it has found important new techniques in picture-making and story-telling."<ref name="Leaming OW"/>{{Rp|211|December 2014}} ''[[Life (magazine)|Life]]'' magazine's review said that "few movies have ever come from Hollywood with such powerful narrative, such original technique, such exciting photography."<ref name="Leaming OW"/>{{Rp|211|December 2014}} [[John Mosher (writer)|John C. Mosher]] of ''The New Yorker'' called the film's style "like fresh air" and raved "Something new has come to the movie world at last."<ref name="Roberts"/>{{Rp|68}} Anthony Bower of ''[[The Nation]]'' called it "brilliant" and praised the cinematography and performances by Welles, Comingore and Cotten.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Bower |first=Anthony |title=Citizen Kane |magazine=[[The Nation]] |location=New York |date=April 26, 1941}}</ref> [[John O'Hara]]'s ''[[Newsweek]]'' review called it the best picture he'd ever seen and said Welles was "the best actor in the history of acting."<ref name="Leaming OW"/>{{Rp|211|December 2014}} Welles called O'Hara's review "the greatest review that anybody ever had."<ref name="Lunches"/>{{Rp|100}}

In the UK [[C. A. Lejeune]] of ''[[The Observer]]'' called it "The most exciting film that has come out of Hollywood in twenty-five years"<ref>{{cite news |last=Lejeune |first=C. A. |author-link=C. A. Lejeune |title=The most exciting film that has come out of Hollywood in twenty-five years |newspaper=[[The Observer]] |location=London, UK |url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/1941/oct/12/derekmalcolmscenturyoffilm |date=October 12, 1941 |access-date=December 11, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141215003710/http://www.theguardian.com/film/1941/oct/12/derekmalcolmscenturyoffilm |archive-date=December 15, 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Dilys Powell]] of ''[[The Sunday Times]]'' said the film's style was made "with the ease and boldness and resource of one who controls and is not controlled by his medium."<ref name=Heylin>{{cite book |last=Heylin |first=Clinton |author-link=Clinton Heylin |title=Despite the System: Orson Welles Versus the Hollywood Studios |publisher=[[Chicago Review Press]] |location=Chicago, Illinois |year=2006 |isbn=978-1-55652-547-6 |url=https://archive.org/details/despitesystemors00heyl}}</ref>{{Rp|63|December 2014}} [[Edward Tangye Lean]] of ''[[Horizon (British magazine)|Horizon]]'' praised the film's technical style, calling it "perhaps a decade ahead of its contemporaries."<ref>{{cite news |last=Lean |first=Tangye |author-link=Edward Tangye Lean |title=Pre-War Citizen |publisher=[[Horizon (British magazine)|Horizon]] |location=London, UK |date=November 1941}}</ref>{{efn|Kevin Brownlow believes that Lean's brother [[David Lean|David]] was influential on (if not co-writer of) this review. Years later Welles thanked David Lean for the article.<ref>{{cite book |last=Brownlow |first=Kevin |author-link=Kevin Brownlow |title=David Lean: A Biography |publisher=[[Macmillan Publishers]] |location=London, UK |date=1996 |isbn=978-1-4668-3237-4}}</ref>{{Rp|notes }}}}

Other reviews were mixed. Edwin Schallert of the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' said it was brilliant and skillful at times, but had an ending that "rather fizzled".<ref name="schallert19410509">{{Cite news |last=Schallert |first=Edwin |date=1941-05-09 |title=Welles' ''Citizen Kane'' Revolutionary Film|page=18|newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]]|url=https://www.newspapers.com/image/380773599/ |access-date=2023-04-11}}</ref>  The ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' called the film interesting and different but "its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value".<ref>Tinee, Mae (May 7, 1941). "[https://www.newspapers.com/image/372308135/ ''Citizen Kane'' Fails to Impress Critis as Greatest Ever Filmed]". ''[[Chicago Tribune]]''. p. 25.</ref> [[Otis Ferguson]] of ''[[The New Republic]]'' said it was "the boldest free-hand stroke in major screen production since [[D. W. Griffith|Griffith]] and [[Billy Bitzer|Bitzer]] were running wild to unshackle the camera", but also criticized its style, calling it a "retrogression in film technique" and stating that "it holds no great place" in film history.<ref name="Ferguson">{{cite magazine |last=Ferguson |first=Otis |author-link=Otis Ferguson |title=Citizen Kane |magazine=[[The New Republic]] |date=June 2, 1941}}</ref> Ferguson reacted to some of the film's celebrated visual techniques by calling them "just willful dabbling" and "the old shell game." In a rare film review, filmmaker [[Erich von Stroheim]] criticized the film's story and non-linear structure, but praised the technical style and performances, and wrote "Whatever the truth may be about it, ''Citizen Kane'' is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Welles!"<ref>{{cite news |last=von Stroheim |first=Erich |author-link=Erich von Stroheim |title=Citizen Kane |publisher=Decision, a review of free culture, Volume 1, number 6 |url=http://www.fredcamper.com/M/VonStroheim.html |date=June 6, 1941 |access-date=December 16, 2014 |pages=91–93 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141211151919/http://www.fredcamper.com/M/VonStroheim.html |archive-date=December 11, 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Some prominent critics wrote negative reviews. None of them dismissed the film as being altogether bad, noting the film's undeniable technical effects, but they did find fault with the narrative. Eileen Creelman of ''[[The Sun (New York)|The New York Sun]]'' called it "a cold picture, unemotional, a puzzle rather than a drama".<ref name="Higham"/>{{Rp|178}} In his 1941 review for ''[[Sur (magazine)|Sur]]'', [[Jorge Luis Borges]] famously called the film "a labyrinth with no center" and predicted that its legacy would be a film "whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again."<ref name="Borges">{{cite magazine |last=Borges |first=Jorge Luis |author-link=Jorge Luis Borges |title=El Ciudadano |magazine=[[Sur (magazine)|Sur]], Number 83 |location=Buenos Aires, Argentina |url=http://www.canaltrans.com/lalinternamagica/005.html |date=August 1941 |access-date=December 7, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220192854/http://www.canaltrans.com/lalinternamagica/005.html |archive-date=December 20, 2014 |url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[The Argus (Australia)|The Argus Weekend Magazine]]'' critic Erle Cox called the film "amazing" but thought that Welles's break with Hollywood traditions was "overdone".<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8231805 |last=Cox |first=Erle |author-link=Erle Cox |title=Screen Realism May Be a Little Too Real |magazine=[[The Argus (Australia)|The Argus Weekend Magazine]] |location=Melbourne, Australia |date=February 7, 1942 |page=6}}</ref> ''[[Tatler]]''{{'}}s [[James Agate]] called it "the well-intentioned, muddled, amateurish thing one expects from high-brows";<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Agate |first=James |author-link=James Agate |title=Citizen Kane |magazine=[[The Tatler]] |date=October 22, 1941 |pages=227–229 |postscript=none}}, reprinted in ''Around Cinemas'' (1946) Home & Van Thal Ltd.</ref> he admitted that it was "a quite good film" but insisted that it "tries to run the psychological essay in harness with your detective thriller, and doesn't quite succeed."<ref>{{cite news |last=Agate |first=James |title=More About Citizen Kane |publisher=[[The Tatler]] |date=November 5, 1941 |pages=229–231 |postscript=none}}, reprinted in ''Around Cinemas'' (1946) Home & Van Thal Ltd.</ref> Other people who disliked the film were [[W. H. Auden]]<ref name="Lunches"/>{{Rp|98}} and [[James Agee]].<ref name= "Lunches"/>{{Rp|99}} After watching the film on January 29, 1942, future British star [[Kenneth Williams]], then aged 15, curtly described the film in his first diary as "boshey rot".<ref>{{cite book |last=Davies |first=Russell |date=1993 |title=The Kenneth Williams Diaries |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=z_Xmifzm8cUC&dq=%22boshey+rot%22+%22citizen+Kane%22&pg=PA2 |publisher=Harper Collins |page=2 |isbn=0-00-638090-5}}</ref>