Citizen Kane

[domenicaflor]

Since CITIZEN KANE was mentioned by various posters and somewhat generally agreed upon to be the pithy "homework", here's a new thread for it.

Welles was of course not the first person to use deep focus shots, but he employs them to great effect in KANE. I'm thinking particularly of the flashback to the boy Charles playing in the snow while his mother effectively signs away his life to the guardian. There's multiple levels of frames in that shot - doors and windows that heighten the viewers knowledge that they boy is soon to be trapped in a "prison" of a life that he never truly controls. The innocence lost in that scene is never to be regained.

I think that alienation is a key part of what the audience is meant to feel. Kane is a man who is utterly alone - he is alienated from his parents, his first and second wives, his son, and his employees - including ones who used to be his friends. Money and power have isolated him. Once he lost control of his life as a child, his riches led him to seek greater and greater control. No amount of physical possessions, not even a mansion filled with art, could truly provide him happiness.

That kind of spiritual emptiness is evident throughout the film. The parties he throws are self-aggrandizing tributes. The scenes with his wives are completely devoid of emotion. The setting of the mansion at Xanadu is grotesquely ornate but at the same time excessively cold - a complete contrast from the "hearth" of a true home. At the very end, as the camera pans overhead across all of Kane's vast possessions being inventoried, the viewer is struck by a feeling of incredible emptiness, as if to say, "What a waste."

I won't spoil the secret of "Rosebud", but the final scene of the film is deeply ironic and sad for the reasons I mentioned above, as the film returns to the flames of the hearth.

D.

[LOCIfan]

Yes, I agree that Welles uses depth of focus shots well in KANE -- and also that he wasn't the first. He used John Ford's cinematographer precisely because he was adept at not only depth of focus, but "universal" focus techniques, and had employed them in Ford films. Jean Renoir (son of Auguste), as early as 1932, experimented with depth of focus as a narrative tool in BOUDU SAUVED FROM DROWNING, and subsequently employed it to dazzling narrative effect in 1937/38's THE GRAND ILLUSION.

I also agree that alienation, of a kind particular to successful industrial American capitalists, is at the core of the film. As such, it's fitting that there is something overtly mechanical to the viewing experience.

What prevents me from really feeling this film is that the alienation is unrelentingly devoid of emotion in spite of the fact that the condition of alienation is not.

Alienation is disorienting, frightening, sad. I tend to contrast KANE with GRAND ILLUSION because that, too, is a film about alienation. The alienation of a German aristocrat witnessing the death of the old European aristocracy in the trenches of WWI. von Stroheim's Commandant is eternally alienated -- physically, ethnically, spiritually. Renoir's camera work reinforces that theme, but the emotion is not drained from it. Quite the contrary, the film is, at times, elegiacal. The sorrow, pain, loneliness, regret is all there.

That said, the coldness of KANE is enhanced by the fact that it's a story about one man's life as told by those who knew him. They are outsiders looking in. Just as I, as a member of the audience, am. The documentary style of the narrative is once-removed from the actual experiences, and the people commenting on Kane's life through their own memories of him run into the barriers and defenses that Kane erected during his lifetime as protective walls. The raw materials of Kane's alienation continue to do their job, even after Kane no longer needs (or, perhaps, wants) them. He's ultimately an unsolved mystery. We, the viewer, may come to know what rosebud was, but what it meant to Kane -- well, that remains unanswered. After all, can we ever truly Know another person? It's a point well made and well taken.

I appreciate KANE for its technical achievements, its story, its humor (including the rosebud-Hearst-inside-joke re: Marion Davies), even its flubs (i.e. if Kane died alone there'd have been nobody there to hear him say "rosebud"; the violation of Jed's narrative point of view during the fantastic marriage-breakfast montage, etc...). Plus, I have a thing for Joseph Cotten.

Beyond that, I appreciate the film for being much more than the history of one man, it's a history and commentary on that man's time: the state of American capitalism; journalism and the rise of celebrity journalists; the rise of ruthless political machines; the birth of raido and fascism.

It is, I believe, a great film. One which engages my intellect, but my emotions -- not so much.

Ok, I'll shut my trap now and listen to those who've watched the film more recently.

[Patcat]

I agree that KANE is a film that tends to engage the intellect more than the heart, unless you get emotional over dazzling film making. And I'm one of those people who can and does swoon over camera angles (g)

But there was one time when I was watching KANE and I was so overcome emotionally that I had to get up and leave the room for a moment. It was the scene where Kane was dancing with the showgirls, and the combination of watching this dazzling young man and knowing what was going to happen to him, as well as watching Orson Welles as a dazzling young man and knowing what would happen to him, got to me.

Now, that really has more to with me than the film, but it did have an emotional impact on me.

Patcat

[NikkiGreen]

Well, I have my rental copy and I'm ready for my homework assignment.

[Techguy]

I'm ready for our weekend homework assignment, too.

Just a few comments before I view CK again, subject to modification afterward: I don't think the lack of emotional engagement is necessarily a flaw, and might actually be quite appropriate for the story this movie is telling. We're seeing Charles Foster Kane's life not from his own perspective, but from that of those who knew him best. Kane was cold and controlling, and we see how his life unfolds in the context of how Jed is telling it in flashback.

LOCIfan is correct that there are inconsistencies in the storytelling, such as the departure of Jed's POV in the breakfast scenes with Kane and his first wife. And Kane's saying "Rosebud" would not be heard by anyone if he died alone. But I interpret these two apparent "flubs" as welcome and necessary for the viewer to get glimpses of Kane that even Jed and others would not be privy to.

The second example of "Rosebud" I think is absolutely necessary to provide the one clue to Kane's own emotional state on his death bed and his feelings of loneliness and alienation as his life is ebbing away. Nothing that has gone on before in CK reveals what emotions lie beneath Kane's cold and controlling behavior. But...the final shots with the single clue of "Rosebud" are all I need to finally understand what's going on in Kane's mind--and heart--in his most personal and intimate final moments of life.

[Metella]

oh wow - I am totally intrigued! Ok - Homework this weekend - - - right after the MacMan.

[LOCIfan]

Techguy, don't get me wrong. As I said above, I do see CK as a great film, and don't see its coldness as a flaw, per se. It's just a personal preference in terms of those films which hold a special place in my heart (i.e. THE 400 BLOWS) because they move me to the core of my emotional being in addition to being intellectually stimulating and beautifully shot.

Just wanted to clarify, lest the Gods of the Silver Screen should smite me for trash-talking the great and powerful Welles!!

[Techguy]

May the gods of the silver screen smile on you, LOCIfan. This board is definitely a "No Smiting" zone!

I was essentially agreeing with your take on CK and understand how and why it didn't engage you emotionally as much as some other movies.

In my post I was just stating that this level of emotional involvement for the entire movie wasn't necessary for me, as I viewed it as I would a "documentary" with a certain level of emotional detachment on my part. However, everything came together to my satisfaction in the final shots I mentioned.

[Cassie]

My Homework Assignment:

It was well over 10 years that I saw Citizen Kane for the first time. What I remember most about the movie was the camera angles, the perspective when entering or leaving a room. I really do like how they showed the change in his marriage to the 1st wife at the dinning room table.

Kane, I believe wanted to be a warm hearted human being, wanting to help mankind. He made the comment that he saw himself as two people, Charles Foster Kane who owned 82,364 shares of newspaper stock. A scoundrel. Secondly he was the Publisher of the Inquirer, “such was his duty and pleasure to see that decent hard working people where not robbed blind by a pack of money mad pirates just because they can’t have anyone look after their interest.” He was ok with losing a million dollars a year on his newspaper, if he thought he would be helping those less fortunate then himself. He also made the comment: If he hadn’t been a rich man, he could have been a great man. His first marriage fell apart. So did his second. When Susan, his second wife was leaving him, he begged her to stay, saying “ from now on, things will be exactly the way you want it, not the way I think you want it, but your way….You must not go . You can not do this to me” she responded with “I see its being done to you, not what it means to me”<br>
Kane thought he could buy people. He did not really understand what it meant to be loved or to love. His cry out to Susan, saying that he was willing to try to give her what she needed, not what he thought she needed, was a step in the right direction. However it was motivated by the wrong reason. So she would not leave him. Agapae Love is when you care enough for a person that you try to give them, what is important to them. Not what is important to you. Or what you think they need. It’s the ability to ask the other person, what they want and need from you. Kane, was finally asking that question. But he was doing it for the wrong reasons. So she would not go. He wasn’t concerned as much for her as he was for himself.

As for Rosebud, how many of us have a favorite toy from our youth, that we look back to with fond memories? I do, his name was Doggie, a stuffed pink dog. Yes, he was a he. Something else that I have been thinking about when it comes to the show LOCI, with Det Bobby Goren. I do think that VDO is cute. However, that is not what draws me to the show. There is something about Goren, that brings out the little girl in me. I get just as excited over Goren, and what he stand for as I did over George Reeve’s Superman reruns from when I was a kid. Standing up for truth, justice, and the American way. On Sundays nights the theme chant in my home is Yes Bobby Goren is the man, if he cant’ do it no one can! I was talking about this the one morning with my husband about what draws me to Goren. He understood what I was saying because his favorite show is American Dreams. It reminds him of his youth, especially because of the music. He said that we all have things from our youth that we are fond of remembering because they make us feel young , innocent and free.

I liked the movie. It’s a lesson in the ability to love. Yes it does leave you cold, but I think it needed to be said.

[LOCIfan]

Great post, Cassie. I'd forgotten about that exchange between Kane and Susan when she's walking out on him.

Anybody else do the homework? C'mon Techguy, I know you watched!!

[Techguy]

Yes LOCIfan, I did watch "Citizen Kane" and I am amazed and intrigued how Charles Foster Kane and Boyce Wainwright in "Ex Stasis" are so much alike.

I don't want to repeat too much of what I already posted on the CI episode thread, but the first thing that comes to mind is--if organ donation were possible in Kane's time, I can picture him behaving in a manner similar to Wainwright. Not to the degree Wainwright does with murder, but given Kane's desire for absolute control and unquestioning devotional love, I can imagine him bequeathing his organs according to his own criteria of worthiness.

Kane deludes himself into thinking showering those he loves with material possessions is the way to insure their loyalty and their love. Although Wainwright takes the opposite approach with his own family, he is equally controlling. By donating his organs to those he deems worthy, he deludes himself into thinking his act of "generosity" bestows an obligation on the recipient to pay him back with acceptable behavior. Wainwright is Kane's twin, or at least his emotional and psychological descendant, playing God with the lives of the organ recipients of his own body parts.

In both cases, Kane and Wainwright discount the wishes and desires of the recipients of their generosity and make their gifts all about themselves and not the other people involved. Kane imposes his own will on the life and "career" of his second wife Susan far beyond what her talent or lack of same would merit. He is more concerned with re-creating her in his own image, playing God with her life as he tries to buy her love and devotion for which he will reward her with the cold and emotionless splendor of Xanadu, a tomb-like monument to Kane and everything he had become.

Like Kane's Rosebud, Wainwright has his father's statue of Gandhi to inspire and/or remind him of his chosen life's purpose. The shot of the burning sled in the hearth is one last final evocative image for Kane's ultimate failure to achieve anything close to his primary objective. Similarly, the Gandhi statue in "Ex Stasis" is a harsh reminder of how Wainwright has distorted and corrupted everything Gandhi represents.

[Metella]

I did mine!

Ok - first, thank you guys - as I never would have rented this without the ringing endorsements.

I didn't think kane was trying to buy people, I think he felt abandoned and wanted to shelter everyone he liked from that feeling; as well as try to regain that feeling of safety and love ..... that feeling - the last time he had it he was sliding down a hill on rosebud ! I think it was that feeling - the last time he was truly happy; that he was trying to recapture his whole life.

I felt he was never ever a bad guy & only got a bit blinded at the end - then he snapped back out of it when he was begging Susan to stay; when he was showing her all of him & she got caught up in his words and overlooked his heartfelt meaning & walked out on him. Now, I think she was OVERDUE to walkout; about 276 jigsaw puzzles overdue; but that doesn't stop me from feeling sorry for kane, as she did also.

WOW what a flick. and I just love the dialog in old B&W films; snappy & witty. I was loosing my concentration during the middle & had to take a cookie break and finish with some sugar in my blood.

I was leaning toward rosebud being his mother - but always felt it was something warm & fuzzy from his childhood - not a lover.

Now, please comment on my impression on this: I thought he had NEVER had an affair with Susan, that he was shocked at the idea, but was going to fight and innocently thought that the truth always comes out & he would be fine. I don't think he realized that just being there for Susan's companionship was damning enough. Then he wasn't going to let Susan, who he did care about, fall on her face so he pushed to give her everything he thought she wanted.

I liked him, I didn't find him cold at all. I found him a greek tragedy of misunderstandings.

[Techguy]

Metella, I'm glad you enjoyed "Citizen Kane" and that I might have played some role in your decision to rent it. It's also interesting that you came away with a much more sympathetic view of Charles Foster Kane. I myself still view him as cold and controlling, but the film itself is far from cold as it tells Kane's story of what happens to him after being taken away from his mother as a young boy. Every decision Kane makes in his life seems to be a response to, and desire not to repeat, that early traumatic event. His life is a human tragedy of epic proportions, much like the man himself.

As to whether Kane actually had an affair with Susan, perhaps a few background details might be helpful. "Citizen Kane" is based on the life of William Randolph Hearst. Orson Welles co-wrote the screenplay with Herman Mankiewicz who had an up-close look at Hearst as he had been an occasional house guest at the Hearst mansion. The similarities between the two men are obvious--both men are newspaper magnates, and each had their larger-than-life mansions--Hearst's is the castle at San Simeon and Kane his Xanadu. Hearst had a mistress Marion Davies whose career he promoted and who loved to do jigsaw puzzles--just like Susan in "Citizen Kane."

As is mentioned in a review of "Citizen Kane" (Two-Disc Special Edition), the obvious similarities didn't escape Hearst, who used his enormous power and influence and that of his powerful friends to try to crush it. Even Hollywood turned on Welles; "Citizen Kane" was nominated for 9 Oscars, but won only best screenplay. The film turned out to be a commercial failure, losing $150,000.

After all the controversy and efforts to suppress it, we are fortunate indeed to have the opportunity to view "Citizen Kane" and discuss it. And as for "Rosebud"--we find out eventually what it is, but what does it really mean?

[Cassie]

Techguy said:

And as for "Rosebud"--we find out eventually what it is, but what does it really mean?

Techguy, I really think the meaning to Rosebud to Kane, was: It was the one thing in his entire life, that he could reach back to , which could bring him confort, joy and to give him that "warm and fuzzy" feeling. I think also to be "warm and fuzzy" is a feeling of being loved

Thanks Metella, Had I not known about The Hearst connection, I might have seen the movie in a different light.

[Techguy]

Hello Cassie. I'm glad to see someone else jumped on the "Citizen Kane" bandwagon.

I asked the question about the meaning of "Rosebud" for two reasons. First, the POV in the movie is almost entirely that of people who knew Kane, not Kane himself. We get very rare glimpses of his life apart from other people's recollections of him. So whatever "Rosebud" meant to Kane on an emotional level still remains somewhat of a mystery--much like the man himself. For me the final shots of the burning sled evoke so many layers of meaning, at once both simple and complex to represent the man Kane himself. Even after viewing "Citizen Kane" for the umpteenth time this past weekend, those final shots still get to me and provoke more questions about what is really going on in the mind and heart of Kane as he gives up his last breath on his death bed.

The second reason I bring up the meaning of "Rosebud" relates to yet another Kane/Hearst connection. "Rosebud" is alleged to have been the pet nickname Hearst had for his mistress Marion Davies' most intimate private part--I don't want to be crude here, but please use your imagination. No wonder Hearst moved heaven and earth to try to prevent the movie's release.