Ronnie - nice try, but no cigar. I wasn't talking about Kane the character, or how chilly or dark the movie might be. By 'cold' I meant lifeless. I wasn't moved. I didn't care what was going to happen next.

I'm not sure about it, but it seems like Welles was a stubborn perfectionist. I'm not sure he made movies "for the people". More likely art for art-sake; pure, uncompromising approach. The result is a highly complex and intelligent piece, which is not very accessible to the common viewer. That's what I mean by cold approach. And that's why my last question was whether we, the audience, should be part of the equation when art is on the table.

"Citizen Kane" offers much in the details, but I wonder what's the basic attraction to it? that's my question to both of you: what makes you want to watch the next scene? what are you looking for? what do you want to find out? (except for "rosebud")

Those contrasts you list, Capo, are numerous. What I'm looking for is the lead contrast, under which they all group together. Is there one controlling argument in the film, and if so please name it. Is it a biography of Charles Foster Kane?

A masterpiece for me, is a movie where great details are built on great basics. You take Shakespeare for instance, his plays are remarkable in their most simple form as well. Every simpleton would enjoy the story of "Romeo and Juliet" or "Henry V" even if that simpleton fails to realize all the great and complex details of Shak's writing. The basic story is wonderful. A close reading will make it even much more wonderful.

Do you think "Citizen Kane" will work in the form of a simple story? maybe the answer to this question is the answer to why so many viewers fail to connect.