Sure, I’m not sure I’d actually call it the Best Film Ever, but it is a great movie. Part of its importance, compared to some of the other movies you’ve mentioned, is the story of how it got made / that it got made at all. Welles had zero film experience, yet was fully funded, and the movie itself was a direct attack on one of the single most powerful men of the era. Welles himself was a larger-than-life character and that’s probably half the reason we are still talking about Kane. Art isn’t created in a vacuum, after all.
I’m not sure what a modern equivalent would look like, but imagine a $200 million studio film that eloquently attacks the heads of CNN, The NY Times, and another half-dozen top media firms. That sort of thing would never get made today.
Thanks for the other suggestion though, I’ll look into it for sure!
> I’m not sure I’d actually call it the Best Film Ever
Most critics would, though. And I've never heard that its importance is in any way tied to its production. Welles took film from "filmed stage plays" and literally opened up the genre. He ripped up floorboards to get the right perspective. He innovated direction right and left.
The only aspect of the film being about Hearst was that its debut was canned, distribution was shot, and he would never (really) be allowed to make another film again.
I’m not sure what a modern equivalent would look like, but imagine a $200 million studio film that eloquently attacks the heads of CNN, The NY Times, and another half-dozen top media firms. That sort of thing would never get made today.
Thanks for the other suggestion though, I’ll look into it for sure!