Response to the Laura Mulvey book

I've seen Citizen Kane a few times, and each time it never fails to compel me, especially the shots taken of Welles at extreme low angles within the newspaper office. It is extraordinary to me that this film, after half a century, is regarded as one of the greatest films ever made. Thus I was interested in reading Laura Mulvey's interpretation of the metaphors present within the film. One thing that she acknowledges is the absence of a typical Hollywood female lead. Although it is obvious that the film is centered around Kane, it never occurred to me that the film is constructed to avoid the accommodation of a glamorous tone. This construction also creates confusion surrounding the characterization of Kane. It is difficult to determine whether he is good or bad, as the circumstances of his childhood, can be credited to his personality disorder, yet the construction of the narrative also (through the interpretations of many) fluctuates and distorts balance. Ultimately, I do not believe the film can be defined nor placed within the boundaries of a metaphor or two. Rather, the nature of the film itself requires multiple viewings and interpretations, similar to the way one mans life cannot be summed up in a sentence. It is the unique construction of the film and the lack of the glamor effect which forces the viewer to consciously ponder the material and reach their own conclusions as to its meaning.