Citizen Kane: Questions for Reflection
By On · 19 Comments
Citizen Kane is filmed as a series of long takes, composed in-depth to eliminate the necessity for narrative cutting within major dramatic scenes. The film uses very little shot/counter-shot. Why is this so important to the way we experience the film visually?
Why is this important to the content of the film?
Do the multiple perspectives bring us closer to or further away from the truth?
Do the individual narratives distinctively differ? Are they all Welles/Toland’s visions or do they show individual narrators’ perspectives?
Do the perspectives of the individual narrators always make sense? That is, would Susan know the content of her own narrative? Would Jed have access to the information in his narrative?
Do the narratives work with each other or contradict each other?
Do the more subjective narratives support or refute the newsreel?
Does the answer to Rosebud tell us anything? everything? nothing?
Why don’t we get to see the reporters’ faces?
How is the film prophetic? Does it shed any light on the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, for instance?
Can you see the influence of Citizen Kane on the films we’ve seen this semester, particularly Sunset Blvd.?
What other films do you know that have been influenced by Citizen Kane?
How are windows used in the film?
How would you describe the acting in the film?
What does the film have to say about the relationship between the sexes?
How does the film help us to think about today’s media? Does it shed light on Fox News? The internet? Etc.
Orson Welles made this film, his first and greatest, at age 25. Why is it important that this film was directed, written, and acted in by a young man?
I am going to be very honest in that I have not fallen asleep during any of the movies in this class except for Citizen Kane. I am not sure if I was bored, or if it was too tired. One thing that stuck out in my mind the most was Charles’s first marriage to Emily that was described by the old man in the wheel chair. The breakfast montage was one of the things I distinctly remember about the film. We see Kane change from a fresh young man to a rude husband. Both of the two did. The filming of this scene was brilliant. At first the couple is sitting very close at the corner of the table discussing the time they just spent together and the time they are about so spend together. They are both smiling and speaking very lovingly to each other. The scene rapidly blurs to the next four times at breakfast. The conversation is even answered in the next blurred scene, displaying how rapidly their marriage crumbled. Each time Emily becomes more upset while Kane is even yelling at her over breakfast. They are now far away from each other at the ends of the tables with more and more china and flowers piling in between them. We can see the lavish success at the paper is literally driving their marriage apart. By the end, they both have newspapers in front of their faces and no conversation is occurring. This is one of the few scenes in the film that uses the shot and counter shot idea between conversations.
As viewers we see the narrative through the windows. The idea of a narrative is accurately portrayed this was because we are only given a glimpse of a situation through someone else’s lens. My favorite window scene was from the top of the club that Susan now owns. The use entering a scene trough the window lets the audience know we’re only getting a small picture on the entire situation. This is extremely useful for the idea of the narrative.
I found this film to be a very thoughtful portrayal of the internal struggle we are confronted with, in our attempts to achieve success and happiness. Orson Wells personifies the rise of yellow journalism through the portrayal of William Randolph Hearst. Known for being the owner of the New York Journal and the San Francisco Examiner, we recognize Hearst as a prominent figure who fueled the sensational fabrication of stories during the Spanish American War. The movie accurately captures the fierce newspaper competition that took place between Pulitzer and Hearst, as they both fought to have complete control of the market. This sparked rapid developments in journalism in terms of layout, design, and content. In order to increase their readership, publications introduced new elements like cartoon figures and larger-than-life headlines. These were innocent attempts to increase a newspaper’s appeal to attract a larger audience, but soon after these tactics turned vicious and became nothing short of the spreading of lies. Wells mirrors this feature in the film, as Hearst’s character becomes increasing more power hungry, deceitful, and his obsession for total control spirals out of control. Hearst’s success is described to be a combination of luck and talent, coming into money at an early age and making the most out of his education. This allowed him to develop remarkable drive, outstanding social skills, and the ability to make decisions, leading him to have presidential aspirations and his candidacy for New York State Governor. After his marriage to Emily, the film illustrates the expansion of Heart’s ego as he rejects her advice and does not consider her opinion to be of value. Their marriage is simply another accomplishment and evidence proving his way is always right. The campaign drives Hearst to petty tactics like slander and to falsely accuse his opponent of outlandish activity as a way to undermine his character. By reducing the integrity of Hearst, Wells is able to illustrate how unspeakable and ludicrous it was for newspapers to intentionally feed the monster of yellow journalism. A newspaper was founded on the ideal of presenting an unbiased report of the news, not a fictitious and highly exaggerated version of the truth. We see the ego of Hearst become even larger when he begins an affair with Susan Alexander and Wells uses this opportunity to illustrate how Hearst believes he is above the rules. Even though he is a married, he finds it acceptable to become involved with another woman and has no remorse for the humiliation he puts Emily through when the marriage ends. The audacity for Hearst to behave in such a despicable manner is also a reflection of the newspaper and their nerve in lying to the public to make more money. The progression of yellow journalism occurred because newspapers were never satisfied and would go to greater and greater lengths to expand their circulation. Just like Hearst would stop at nothing to create some sort of success from marrying Emily and Susan, which why the marriage failed when they did.
Every time I watch Citizen Kane, I understand why it won an Academy Award for Best Writing (now Best Screenplay). The writing is just incredible. The story is rather unique for film; rather than following a character for a short period of time, the story follows Charles Foster Kane throughout his whole life. Additionally the use of flashback through the eyes of the reporter, helps the audience follow the story. By never showing the reporters face, the audience is able to become the reporter trying to understand the meaning of “Rosebud.” The audience watches as the sad of life of Kane unfolds. After all the wealth, all the possessions and all the power he acquired, he longs for the simplicity of his childhood on his deathbed. Every time the shot of the sled burning in the incinerator comes on the screen, I get goosebumps. The only material possession that mattered to Kane burns.The story is incredibly moving and powerful.
Undoubtedly, this is Orson Welles masterpiece of acting, writing and directing. Welles plays the various ages of Kane seamlessly (not counting the awful makeup). The use of shots throughout is also masterful. The camera always shoots up to Kane and down on the other characters in a way which further emphasizes Kane’s power and domination over others. Additionally the use of deep-focus allowed for the story to be illustrated through single shots rather than the traditional shot-countershot. By using single shots, the film presents no one to “counter” Kane. Rather he simply controls those around him with no one to counter him. Welles as young and inexperienced director and actor was able to take chances that an older director would most likely would have not been willing to take. He came in with very little understanding of film-making and didn’t use the traditional modes of filming. Because of this lack of knowledge he was able to direct in a new way that he did not realize was different than the norm. Also, since he acted, wrote and directed the film, he had complete control of his character. This control allowed him to act without inhibition and produce the character of Kane the audience sees in the film.
The influence of Citizen Kane is deep and far reaching. There are several similarities between it and Sunset Boulevard. Both show an older character searching for the life and power they have lost. To Norma Desmond, the “Rosebud” of her life was her acting. That is where she felt the most loved and most herself. For Kane, he felt the most loved and most happy when he was outside his family home playing on the sled his parents bought for him. While both have different “Rosebuds” both characters pass away wishing and dreaming of the life they had before.
“Citizen Kane” is one of Hollywood’s landmark films and has influence many, many other films. The camera techniques used in “Citizen Kane,” especially the camera angles, seemed to very much influence the film noir movies that came afterwards. Also, “Lawrence of Arabia” had the same chronological set-up. It started with the main character dying and then showing his life in flashbacks. But while it is one of the all-time greatest films and truly ground-breaking, I was failing to really see how we could be called upon to face an ethical dilemma through the viewing of it. I know the main moral of the story was that overdone, “You can have all the riches in the world but still not have happiness,” thing. It’s almost as overdone as the boy-meets-girl, girl-changes-boy, boy-and-girl-get-married storyline. But there was one line that really stuck out to me. I felt a shock through my entire body as soon as she said it, and it’s been haunting me ever since.
“Love! You don’t love anybody! Me or anybody else! You want to be loved – that’s all you want! I’m Charles Foster Kane. Whatever you want – just name it and it’s yours! But you’ve gotta love me!”
Mary is the character to whom this line belongs. I think of this line almost daily because, in truth, to be loved is really all anybody ever wants. When I come in after a long, terrible day and flop onto my bed, my roommate will ask what’s wrong. “I just had a terrible day.” “You think you did? Wait until you hear mine!” And there’s is usually something like, “I poured a glass of milk, and it was expired.” or “Megan broke up with her boyfriend!” Mine will be something like someone I love very dearly has died. But they don’t care enough to ask, so they go on doing what they were doing before I came in, focusing on themselves. If I did the same thing, they would be furious! Why? Because people are desperate to be loved, not give love.
I tried to think if there was anyone in the world I loved without any hope of being loved in return. Besides Benedict Cumberbatch and David Tennant, I could only think of two people. They’re my two best friends. One is Frank. The best way to describe the way I feel for him would be to quote “Wuthering Heights” when Catherine says, “If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn to a mighty stranger.” He’s my sunshine and if I have to go one day without talking to him, I’m perfectly miserable. But he was my sunshine even before he became my best friend. I delighted in his sheer existence, never mind that I was not a part of his life. The stories I’d hear about him, the jokes I’d hear him say from down the hall. I loved him immensely upon seeing him. I wouldn’t need him to love me in order for me to love him. He would just need to be himself.
The other person I feel that way about is my friend Ellie. Ellie and I got along tremendously at the start. She was the sun in my orbit. Whatever she said or wished, I’d be glad to do. I just liked her. She was warm and inviting and had a contagious laugh. We were inseparable for 3 years, and then we went to high school, and she found older, better, cooler people to pal around with. She treated me like crap or like her personal manservant. But I knew I loved her, so I stuck it out even though I received absolutely no love in return. Now that we’re in college, we’re inseparable again.
So, I suppose it is possible to love without hope of being loved in return, but it is a very rare occurrence. It must be even harder for someone like Charles Foster Kane who has obvious abandonment issues. It seems wealth has ruined him in numerous areas of his life.
“Citizen Kane” is one of Hollywood’s landmark films and has influence many, many other films. The camera techniques used in “Citizen Kane,” especially the camera angles, seemed to very much influence the film noir movies that came afterwards. Also, “Lawrence of Arabia” had the same chronological set-up. It started with the main character dying and then showing his life in flashbacks. But while it is one of the all-time greatest films and truly ground-breaking, I was failing to really see how we could be called upon to face an ethical dilemma through the viewing of it. I know the main moral of the story was that overdone, “You can have all the riches in the world but still not have happiness,” thing. It’s almost as overdone as the boy-meets-girl, girl-changes-boy, boy-and-girl-get-married storyline. But there was one line that really stuck out to me. I felt a shock through my entire body as soon as she said it, and it’s been haunting me ever since.
“Love! You don’t love anybody! Me or anybody else! You want to be loved – that’s all you want! I’m Charles Foster Kane. Whatever you want – just name it and it’s yours! But you’ve gotta love me!”
Mary is the character to whom this line belongs. I think of this line almost daily because, in truth, to be loved is really all anybody ever wants. When I come in after a long, terrible day and flop onto my bed, my roommate will ask what’s wrong. “I just had a terrible day.” “You think you did? Wait until you hear mine!” And there’s is usually something like, “I poured a glass of milk, and it was expired.” or “Megan broke up with her boyfriend!” Mine will be something like someone I love very dearly has died. But they don’t care enough to ask, so they go on doing what they were doing before I came in, focusing on themselves. If I did the same thing, they would be furious! Why? Because people are desperate to be loved, not give love.
I tried to think if there was anyone in the world I loved without any hope of being loved in return. Besides Benedict Cumberbatch and David Tennant, I could only think of two people. They’re my two best friends. One is Frank. The best way to describe the way I feel for him would be to quote “Wuthering Heights” when Catherine says, “If all else perished, and he remained, I should still continue to be; and if all else remained, and he were annihilated, the universe would turn to a mighty stranger.” He’s my sunshine and if I have to go one day without talking to him, I’m perfectly miserable. But he was my sunshine even before he became my best friend. I delighted in his sheer existence, never mind that I was not a part of his life. The stories I’d hear about him, the jokes I’d hear him say from down the hall. I loved him immensely upon seeing him. I wouldn’t need him to love me in order for me to love him. He would just need to be himself.
The other person I feel that way about is my friend Ellie. Ellie and I got along tremendously at the start. She was the sun in my orbit. Whatever she said or wished, I’d be glad to do. I just liked her. She was warm and inviting and had a contagious laugh. We were inseparable for 3 years, and then we went to high school, and she found older, better, cooler people to pal around with. She treated me like crap or like her personal manservant. But I knew I loved her, so I stuck it out even though I received absolutely no love in return. Now that we’re in college, we’re inseparable again.
So, I suppose it is possible to love without hope of being loved in return, but it is a very rare occurrence. It must be even harder for someone like Charles Foster Kane who has obvious abandonment issues. It seems wealth has ruined him in numerous areas of his life.
It has been argued that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made. With innovations beyond comprehension and leading techniques that have changed film forever, this film stands with significant influence. With its use of montage, different camera angles, and innovative editing, its viewing experience exceeds its plot. I can admit that the plot of this film would be pretty boring on its own. It, like so many other films, encompasses the emptiness and meaningless of money, fame, and power. Behind it all is the basic premise that money can’t buy happiness. Yet, what illuminates this story beyond its classic statement is the way in which we see it. The use of extreme close-ups forces us into the pores and crevices of each character, to invade the shallow and superficial world of mansions and endless funds. We are forced into the face, to the window of the soul, to see that the emotions are virtually non-existent. It is, at times, uncomfortable to look at, as these close-ups are not as aesthetically appealing as the long shots of the beautiful scenery, but these unpleasant experiences highlight the dichotomy between the surface and the internal self. The deep space in the shots of Kane’s mansion epitomize a life without purpose and quality, but rather a life that was spent building a cave and shelter away from reality. Kane is absolved in his own money, his wasted efforts, and his immoral decisions to get where he is. His wife does not love him, his days are uneventful, and even with endless availability to do as he pleases, he has lost who he is truly. “Rosebud” is the key word that signifies the internal self that Kane loses. Rosebud is the synthesis of the life he was forced to leave behind and abandon for wealth and fortune. Rosebud is the life he was never able to fulfill; it is the innocence and creativity of the life of a child without the complications of the business world. Rosebud is the freedom and liveliness to go sledding in the snow just because. Kane leaves his childhood bliss for harsh business decisions and even harsher actions, yet all seems beyond his control. His face is in a constant state of pain and reluctance; as if it is never an accurate reflection of what he is feeling. The quick edits, the deep space, and the close-ups come together in a film that pioneers video techniques to enhance the story’s plot.
It has been argued that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made. With innovations beyond comprehension and leading techniques that have changed film forever, this film stands with significant influence. With its use of montage, different camera angles, and innovative editing, its viewing experience exceeds its plot. I can admit that the plot of this film would be pretty boring on its own. It, like so many other films, encompasses the emptiness and meaningless of money, fame, and power. Behind it all is the basic premise that money can’t buy happiness. Yet, what illuminates this story beyond its classic statement is the way in which we see it. The use of extreme close-ups forces us into the pores and crevices of each character, to invade the shallow and superficial world of mansions and endless funds. We are forced into the face, to the window of the soul, to see that the emotions are virtually non-existent. It is, at times, uncomfortable to look at, as these close-ups are not as aesthetically appealing as the long shots of the beautiful scenery, but these unpleasant experiences highlight the dichotomy between the surface and the internal self. The deep space in the shots of Kane’s mansion epitomize a life without purpose and quality, but rather a life that was spent building a cave and shelter away from reality. Kane is absolved in his own money, his wasted efforts, and his immoral decisions to get where he is. His wife does not love him, his days are uneventful, and even with endless availability to do as he pleases, he has lost who he is truly. “Rosebud” is the key word that signifies the internal self that Kane loses. Rosebud is the synthesis of the life he was forced to leave behind and abandon for wealth and fortune. Rosebud is the life he was never able to fulfill; it is the innocence and creativity of the life of a child without the complications of the business world. Rosebud is the freedom and liveliness to go sledding in the snow just because. Kane leaves his childhood bliss for harsh business decisions and even harsher actions, yet all seems beyond his control. His face is in a constant state of pain and reluctance; as if it is never an accurate reflection of what he is feeling. The quick edits, the deep space, and the close-ups come together in a film that pioneers video techniques to enhance the story’s plot.
The use of windows in Citizen Kane is extremely important. They are used as true barriers between worlds in the movie, representations of the idea that what goes on inside a window can be completely different than what goes on outside. Furthermore, what goes on inside can be completely misinterpreted (or even spun) by those on the other side of the window. The very first instance of this is really the driving point of the movie. We are shown the world’s perception of Charles Foster Kane through narratives and montages, but again, that is just the outside world’s perspective. Immediately after that, we are taken through Xanadu, right through one of the windows to hear Kane whisper Rosebud. We know his story from the perspective of the common man, but this small gesture starts the news reporters (and the audience) on a journey to find out who Kane was behind closed doors or, as the case may be, windows.
One of the areas where this device is used most effectively is at Kane’s newspaper businesses. Here, we see the process of Kane spinning the news as he wants. We see the complete change that Kane and his writers can create in an article just by interpretation. We see him make and break political candidates and even nearly propel himself to elected office through effective use of his newspapers. On the flip side, though, we see how newspapers could be used to ruin Kane’s chances at that very same office. His opponent forced an ultimatum upon him and Kane, full of hubris, believes he can defeat the charges, which in the end he cannot. Still, the affair was entirely private until Kane’s opponent made it public. Even then, the facts may or may not have been accurate. Kane insists that he didn’t sleep with Susan while he was still married, and while some of the more cynical viewers may question how true that actually is, he stuck with that story, and it cost him the election.
We are also made aware of how the characters in the story are not all they seem. Susan, for instance, never wanted as much commotion around her singing as Kane gave it. Jed, also, seemed to hold no ill will towards Kane, instead seemingly having forgiven him a long time before the interview for the unceremonious end to their friendship. And, most of all, we see that Charles Foster Kane was really just a child at heart, longing to have the comfort of his life before money flooded it. Rosebud was the first and last glimpse of that that the viewers really had, but it was a powerful image.
It is obvious to me why Citizen Kane is considered the greatest film of all time. Debuting over seventy years ago, Citizen Kane was such a cinematic feat for the ages. The choices made by the director and producer were simply inconceivable to viewers. Yes, the plot is well written and keeps the audience enticed the entire two hours, but what really makes Citizen Kane stand out is the stylistic choices made. There are a few scenes in particular that will stay with me after seeing Citizen Kane on the big screen. The first of which is the scene with the dancers when Charles Foster Kane has just recently taken over the newspaper. The dancers are reflected in the window behind the men discussing business. This is one of the first of many scenes where the audience experiences the deep focus the Citizen Kane is so well known for. Another eerie scene where deep focus is used is after Susan leaves Kane; when she turns to exit through the first door, she walks through another and another and yet another while the entire time we see the back of Kane’s head in the bottom left corner as Susan fades further and further away as their relationship finally diminishes. The first time I saw Citizen Kane, I didn’t appreciate it as much as film gurus do. However, seeing Citizen Kane at The State Theatre was a completely fresh and exciting experience, even for a movie that is as old as my grandmother.
I think that this film sheds light on the idea that less is more. Throughout the film, we get multiple perspectives about the life of Charles Kane from the people that played a major role in his life. These different perspectives are supposed to help the audience understand the man and his final word better, but ultimately, the characters in the film are still left wondering what the term “Rosebud” could have meant. I think that this indicates, as it tends to indicate in the real world, that more information does not always help us understand the truth, especially if that information comes from perspectives of varying reliability. In fact, I think that as we gain more perspectives about Charles Kane’s life, we get further and further form the truth. And actually, it is as though the entire plot of the film did not even matter at all because the camera finally tells us what “Rosebud” is in the end, not any of the characters.
By the end of the film, the viewer finally learns what Kane’s final word “Rosebud” was referring to, or at least that is what the viewer is led to believe. I am not really sure that finding this information out tells us anything definitive. I was left with a lot of questions still and ultimately only had my own personal interpretation. I think that “Rosebud” (as referring to the sled) symbolizes something bigger. I think that it represents the childhood that Kane loses at the beginning of his life story, the one that he never had. After all, that is presumably the same sled that he had during that scene of his life story. Again, though, this is definitely open to interpretation and never explicitly answered.
Finally, I think that this film also sheds some light on the media today and more importantly, the sensationalizing of the media. Much of today’s media, especially that of Fox “News”, is filled with stories about the wild and dramatic “truth”. In today’s age of communication, it is often hard to know what is real and what isn’t. And what I think might be worse about the whole situation is that we have almost become complacent to it. We see something truly horrible, and we often feign that we care. We’ve become desensitized to the world around us and no longer demand the truth. We live in a world where literally anyone can say anything that he or she wants. And to me, that’s a pretty scary world to live in.
When he was taken from his poor family by a strange man, Charles Foster (Citizen) Kane vowed to be a success one day. However, his prolific future came at a price. One of the most important themes of “Citizen Kane” is dehumanizing effect of society on the individual. From the plot to the filming style, the film centers on the sacrifice of individuality to society.
The film begins with a news montage of the death of Citizen Kane. It does not report of his life; rather, it focuses on Kane’s existence as a businessman and public figure. In fact, his most memorable contributions were his fortress-like home, Xanadu, and his failure as a politician. More importantly, nobody besides reporter Jerry Thompson cares enough to dig deeper. Director Orson Welles probes the superficiality of society. He pessimistically asserts that what remains of us when we die are material contributions, which can easily be overtaken.
This is further emphasized by how Kane’s life slowly denigrated when he became part of the public sphere. After he took over the newspaper, he no longer had time for his marriage. He and his wife slowly drifted apart as he spent more time at work than at home. Later, when he married his second wife, he tried to please her with gifts, when all she wanted was love. Kane lost the concept of the fundamentals of humanity: time, love, appreciation, etc. The film’s structure only augments this theme.
“Citizen Kane” has few shot/counter-shot images. Not only does this increase the film’s depth, but it also detracts from the importance of each individual character. Rarely does any character have a single shot; consequently, no character is that important. For example, in the scene in the news office, one character sits in the foreground, and one character walks toward him. But it is unclear which character is more important to the shot. Therefore, Welles proves that we all amount to the same thing: humans. And we are all equally important.
The movie especially reminds me of a Jay-Z quote, “I’m not a businessman. I’m a business, man.” I think this identifies both the dark and positive aspects of the film. It is not a crime to run a business, to make a life for oneself. As Kane proves, it is when one’s life is consumed by this business that he becomes the person he never meant to become. Luckily, we are in control of this.
When he was taken from his poor family by a strange man, Charles Foster (Citizen) Kane vowed to be a success one day. However, his prolific future came at a price. One of the most important themes of “Citizen Kane” is dehumanizing effect of society on the individual. From the plot to the filming style, the film centers on the sacrifice of individuality to society.
The film begins with a news montage of the death of Citizen Kane. It does not report of his life; rather, it focuses on Kane’s existence as a businessman and public figure. In fact, his most memorable contributions were his fortress-like home, Xanadu, and his failure as a politician. More importantly, nobody besides reporter Jerry Thompson cares enough to dig deeper. Director Orson Welles probes the superficiality of society. He pessimistically asserts that what remains of us when we die are material contributions, which can easily be overtaken.
This is further emphasized by how Kane’s life slowly denigrated when he became part of the public sphere. After he took over the newspaper, he no longer had time for his marriage. He and his wife slowly drifted apart as he spent more time at work than at home. Later, when he married his second wife, he tried to please her with gifts, when all she wanted was love. Kane lost the concept of the fundamentals of humanity: time, love, appreciation, etc. The film’s structure only augments this theme.
“Citizen Kane” has few shot/counter-shot images. Not only does this increase the film’s depth, but it also detracts from the importance of each individual character. Rarely does any character have a single shot; consequently, no character is that important. For example, in the scene in the news office, one character sits in the foreground, and one character walks toward him. But it is unclear which character is more important to the shot. Therefore, Welles proves that we all amount to the same thing: humans. And we are all equally important.
The movie especially reminds me of a Jay-Z quote, “I’m not a businessman. I’m a business, man.” I think this identifies both the dark and positive aspects of the film. It is not a crime to run a business, to make a life for oneself. As Kane proves, it is when one’s life is consumed by this business that he becomes the person he never meant to become. Luckily, we are in control of this.
Through the first part of the movie, honestly, I was bored. It was hard for me to follow the plot because there didn’t seem to be much of one. However, I then started to notice all of the angle-shot techniques that were strategically being used. Also, the fact that this movie used these techniques way before its time makes me understand a little bit better why it is considered to be the best film of its time. One scene I remember in particular that stands out as being very strategic is when Kane is talking to Susan about her singing performance. It’s clear that she is not very good, and he knows it. The camera focuses on Kane from below, showing him as being the more powerful character, while Susan is shot from above as she vulnerably sits on the floor. It seems that the shift in angle of the way Kane is portrayed changes throughout the movie in direct correlation with how much power and money he has. During his younger years, Kane is shot from eye level, but as be becomes more successful and gains more power, the camera angle seems to shift so that the viewer is gazing up at him.
By the way the film was shot, I can definitely see how it has influenced so many movies that came after. Sunset Boulevard, for example, definitely holds the same kind of ideas and camera angles as Citizen Kane through its use of deep focus and narrative structure. Citizen Kane definitely started a whole new era of cinema.
When it comes to Citizen Kane, I felt Rosebud didn’t tell us everything; instead, it reminded us of what it wanted to, something that felt very far away from us at the time. It almost felt like an excuse—an old man, many mistakes made and his own life in ruin, on his dying day grasps at his past. “Rosebud,” he whispered, and it was his childhood sleigh, a reminder of his old life so far away since he left his home. It seemed as if we were supposed to forgive everything else at present due to his troubled past.
I think the sleigh, however, was symbolic. In his grand palace, all by himself, with hoards of things, the sleigh is regarded as “junk” and burned. The fact that it’s the very same sleigh whose name Kane said on his death bed makes it nearly the only item of importance in the entire massive home. To the audience, the “junk” is instead the statues he’s collected, the empty, lavish rooms, and the large, ridiculous shrine he has made to himself. Yet, the characters in the story, still left in the dark, regards the item that deep down means the most to Kane as the “junk.”
It does somehow seem prophetic. Not necessarily of political scandals, but of a life started out with great intentions debilitating into immorality. His original idea for a newspaper, a great newspaper with the well-being of the public in mind, failed as he accumulated more wealth and power. I think it seems more prophetic of celebrities of today, because when Kane became famous and powerful, his ideals faded out of the spotlight. We have all seen young, wealthy people become famous and seem to lose all sense of right and wrong, as well as who they are. Think of Lindsay Lohan with her multiple arrests, or even Miley Cyrus, as she was recorded partying and smoking out of a bong. When people start out standing for something, fame changes it. Their past precious ideals instead become the “junk.”
For this reason, I think it matters profoundly that Orson Welles was so young and on the brink of a successful career. I think he didn’t want to lose sight of who he was. And to remind himself, he painted an unhappy picture of a man powerful yet ridden with misery and guilt, guilt so heavy the last whisper of his past, “Rosebud,” couldn’t absolve it for the audience.
I think that it is reasons like this that Citizen Cane gains the respect that it has, crafted diligently 71 years ago it has not yet lost relevance. People are still subject to the same egotism as Cane, the same power and corruption as Cane, the same faults of human nature. Circumstances such as his are rarer perhaps today than then, yet people have not changed, and Cane is a representation of what we are, how we act, and our desires are not for wealth, money, and power, but happiness. Isn’t that what we want? Corruption happens when we lose sight of what will bring us happiness, that’s what happened to Cane, and that is what happened to us, as a people
I remember after watching this film for the first time being thoroughly unimpressed. I mean, this is what many film critics and historians claim as the best film ever made! However, I was not convinced. During the first screening I had gone to, someone near me actually fell asleep and had to ask me if anything important had happened, which at that point in the film, nothing had. I don’t know what I was expecting, but it certainly was more than what I was seeing. However, after watching the film a second time, I found myself much more engaged and interested. Maybe since I came in with lowered expectations this time, I was surprised. I think the main reason is because there is simply not much plot, and the first time around I only realized that afterwards, so this time I focused on other aspects on the movie. For example, this time I was much more interested in the storytelling method of second-hand accounts from the people around Kane. Again, the first time, I thought that all of this uncertainty and conflicting ideas between the accounts would build up to a definitive conclusion or revelation, but at the end of the film, none of the reporters have found out anything new about Kane’s life. The audience discovers the meaning of ‘rosebud’, which gives them some kind of insight to his life, but the characters in the movie chalk it up among the many mysteries of the legendary man. On second viewing, I found it more interesting that a complete biographical portrait was withheld, and that Kane’s personality remained an enigma. Also on second viewing, I really did notice the spectacular nature of the film’s visual composition and cinematography. Perhaps it was due to the big screen, but I found that they added another total dimension to the movie as a whole, rather than just making it look nice. A lot about the events in the movie can be discerned from the shot composition as well, such as character dynamic, like in the scene where Kane is completing the bad review and his co-workers can be seen reacting behind him. Overall, I was much more impressed the second time around, but I still don’t understand who in their right mind would name a sled. (And even if you do name your sled, why ‘Rosebud’? Why not “Lightning” or something like that?)
This was my first time watching this film, yet become bored, I did not. Perhaps that is odd for one as young as I, I am one of the youngest in the class, yet I found all of the film to be intense. Perhaps its from a studious rejection of explosions or my inherent love of watching humans, or maybe its just that you and I have differing opinions about the film, but I disagree that the film is boring the first time. Sure the plot moves at about the same pace that a loaf of bread rises, but it does nonetheless, and that’s the bit that actually counts, right?