The DVXUser AFI 100 Years Movie Club...
- Thread starter Erik Olson
- Start date
Zak Forsman
Major Contributor
I voted for One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. French Connection would be my second choice.
As much as I admire them, I don't know what's left to be said about Citizen Kane or Raiders. anyway, i own all those films on DVD so a refresher is no problem.
As much as I admire them, I don't know what's left to be said about Citizen Kane or Raiders. anyway, i own all those films on DVD so a refresher is no problem.
Oh yeah! Hackman is making a comeback at 7.41%.
e
I know that everyone is busy voting on the excellent crop of DVXUser DramaFest entries today, but please take a moment and add your voice to this poll.
Collectively, we'll be watching just one of the films above during the month of February - the one that receives the greatest number of your votes is the one we're assigned!
Vote Now! Polls close at 2PM EST!
e
Collectively, we'll be watching just one of the films above during the month of February - the one that receives the greatest number of your votes is the one we're assigned!
Vote Now! Polls close at 2PM EST!
e
Welcome to the first installment of the DVXUser 100 Films Discussion Group!
As you can see, our first film will be Citizen Kane. Widely acknowledged within the motion picture industry as the finest film ever made, Kane serves as a logical first effort for the group to tackle.
It should be noted that Orson Welles made Kane when he was only twenty-five years old. This is notable because it is very close to the median age of the aspiring filmmakers here at DVXUser!
Anyone interested in participating in the discussion here should watch the movie on their own over the next few weeks. If you've seen it before, I recommend revisiting the film to refresh yourself for the discussion that will follow.
In this continuing thread, we'll examine:
e
As you can see, our first film will be Citizen Kane. Widely acknowledged within the motion picture industry as the finest film ever made, Kane serves as a logical first effort for the group to tackle.
It should be noted that Orson Welles made Kane when he was only twenty-five years old. This is notable because it is very close to the median age of the aspiring filmmakers here at DVXUser!
Anyone interested in participating in the discussion here should watch the movie on their own over the next few weeks. If you've seen it before, I recommend revisiting the film to refresh yourself for the discussion that will follow.
In this continuing thread, we'll examine:
- Citizen Kane within a historical context. What was happening in the United States and around the world that influenced the film?
- Discuss the narrative form and storytelling devices utilized in Kane.
- What technical advances in filmmaking were introduced or improved through Citizen Kane?
- What legacy did Citizen Cane create for subsequent generations of filmmakers?
- A thorough breakdown of the famous March of Time newsreel prologue. What is revealed through the piece? How does it color the remainder of the film?
- Any aspect of the film you feel is relevant!
e
Last edited:
Now that DramaFest is over, has anyone added Citizen Kane to their viewing queue? I've got it arriving on Thursday.
e
e
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
Great selection, E!
6 of these are in my Top 100 (not to mention 5 of which are in the Top 20!)
However, not only would I not rank Kane first outta these screen gems, I have it in the third slot! Although I have championed Casablanca in many a debate as the greatest film ever made, Kane is an indisputable and timeless masterpiece.
I Had This Poll Ranked...
1 Raiders (#3 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
2 Singin' In The Rain (#10 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
3 Citizen Kane (#12 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
4 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (#16 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
5 North By Northwest (#18 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
6 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (#48 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
6 of these are in my Top 100 (not to mention 5 of which are in the Top 20!)
However, not only would I not rank Kane first outta these screen gems, I have it in the third slot! Although I have championed Casablanca in many a debate as the greatest film ever made, Kane is an indisputable and timeless masterpiece.
I Had This Poll Ranked...
1 Raiders (#3 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
2 Singin' In The Rain (#10 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
3 Citizen Kane (#12 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
4 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (#16 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
5 North By Northwest (#18 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
6 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (#48 on the Callaghan All-Time List)
Yeah, this was a really tough list. Raiders arguably has a place amongst the "perfect films". I actually have a relationship with Singin' In The Rain that borders on worship. That, and An American in Paris.
There are many movies on the AFI list that I have no emotional connection to whatsoever. It doesn't mean we shouldn't study them. In fact, I believe that this series will be much more effective if we're all willing to ignore our biases and allegiances for more challenging material whenever possible.
We'll see how this first one comes out. I've got Kane arriving tomorrow.
e
There are many movies on the AFI list that I have no emotional connection to whatsoever. It doesn't mean we shouldn't study them. In fact, I believe that this series will be much more effective if we're all willing to ignore our biases and allegiances for more challenging material whenever possible.
We'll see how this first one comes out. I've got Kane arriving tomorrow.
e
CallaghanFilms
Veteran
overlandfilms said:
You and me both, my friend...you and me both.
In the name of Don Lockwood, the Cosmo and the holy cyd charisse, amen
In the name of Don Lockwood, the Cosmo and the holy cyd charisse, amen
krestofre
Knight of the Holy Order
Anything Gene Kelly is timeless.
I watched Kane last night. I'm getting my thoughts together for a discussion post.
I was thinking this very same thing while watching Kane last night. Earlier in the thread Zak made the point that he didn't know what hasn't been said about Kane. As I'm contemplating my post I'm running into that problem. I think next month I'll gravitate towards a film that I'm less familiar with or *gasp* haven't seen yet!
I watched Kane last night. I'm getting my thoughts together for a discussion post.
I was thinking this very same thing while watching Kane last night. Earlier in the thread Zak made the point that he didn't know what hasn't been said about Kane. As I'm contemplating my post I'm running into that problem. I think next month I'll gravitate towards a film that I'm less familiar with or *gasp* haven't seen yet!
krestofre
Knight of the Holy Order
And here we go........
Since it's release in 1941, Citizen Kane has been lauded, attacked, rediscovered, lauded some more, nearly destroyed, restored, threatened to be colorized, praised, denounced, and proclaimed the greatest American movie ever made. And that's just a gross abbreviation. Why this film? Why Kane? How did Orson Welles in his mid twenties make a movie that will last forever at or near the top of every greatest movie list? I don't presume that I can answer questions like that when sixty plus years of film criticism and theory have been written about Citizen Kane. What I can say is that I dearly love this film. I thoroughly enjoy it from start to finish, though I can certainly see how some can dismiss it or find it uninteresting. There is something so pure about Citizen Kane that even the first time I saw it, when I was about twelve years old, I was captivated by it.
It is a film released in 1941, with 1941 sensibilities, but it feels fresh, like it could have been made last year. Part of that remarkable "newness" of Kane comes from the way the film was shot. Dolly shots, camera angles, non-linear structure, overlapping dialog, lighting, Welles played with all of these things in a way that was completely new. This is an interesting point, because Welles didn't invent any of the filmmaking tools that he used, he was just the first to combine them into one film. At that, Kane is a hodgepodge of camera techniques, a mishmash of staging, and a cacophony of sound. I would love to know how Kane felt to an audience in 1941. All of the research that I could find says that Kane was a well-reviewed and well-received film (with the exception of Hurst papers), but I have to wonder if the picture was a bit of a shock to the system. I wonder if it felt too busy, or crammed with too many flairs of Welles' conglomeration of cinematic language.
Welles's combining of these film techniques onto a single canvas is not unlike Tarantino today. With Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, (to a lesser extent) Jackie Brown, and (to a greater extent) Kill Bill we see Tarantino collecting the best pieces of cinema from around the world and combining them into one picture at a time and essentially forming a new set of cinematic rules. I bring this up during this discussion of Citizen Kane because I think the comparison can fully bring the concept of what Welles was doing to mind. I see a very clear parallel between how Tarantino crafts a film and how Orson Welles crafted Citizen Kane. This could very easily springboard into a thesis on shared cultural ideas, or perhaps a debate about the merits of appropriation in art, but that would be expanding farther than I want to expand. Fascinating though it might be. This could also dwindle into an argument about comparing Tarantino to Welles, which is also not my intention. It's just an observation that I've had for some time.
So why do I like Citizen Kane so much? I guess the short answer would be that I empathies with Charles Foster Kane. This figure of a man who by all accounts should be scorned by everyone, or at the very least forgotten, is to me a bastion of pity. I would also argue that Welles sets Kane up in the film to be just that: A character to be pitied. Welles uses the beginning of the film to have our minds focused to this. We are introduced initially to Kane's environment: A no trespassing sign, grounds that are fenced in and littered with all manner of useless items. Kane lives in a house that is incomplete and dark. His surroundings were designed to keep people out, physically and emotionally, a direct parallel to Kane's life. Once this environmental introduction is complete, Kane dies and utters his mysterious word, "Rosebud." No one is around Kane. Only a maid comes to his bedside to pull the covers fully over his corpse. The snow globe that was Kane's second most cherished possession, lays broken on the floor. From this somber scene we are quickly taken into the March of Time newsreel sequence.
To me it's very important to realize who is telling the story through Citizen Kane. Perception is a key component of this film and it plays heavily into the interpretation. During the March of Times reel, the point of view is that of Thompson's, the reporter who put the reel together and who will go on a quest to discover the meaning of "Rosebud." This is a man who never knew Kane in person. Instead he just knows Kane through the papers, stories, and footage that exist of the enigmatic tycoon. His view of Kane is almost a mocking tone. Frequently the March of Time reel points out the follies of Kane. Meeting with Hitler, the political scandal that Kane found himself involved in, the closing of his newspapers, etc. Perhaps most striking during this sequence is the scene of Kane applying mortar to a cornerstone. Here, and only here, is Kane portrayed in the film as a sort of bumbling idiot. He drops mortar on himself, he gets bumped around by the construction crew. He is a figure to be mocked and laughed at. Thompson, and indeed the world, at this point view Kane in this fashion. The man has no dignity, commands no respect, and in all honesty, Kane probably deserves that kind of image. Thompson is representing the view of Kane from a worldly perspective, and he honestly represents that view based on the structure and content of the March of Time reel. In a fantastic turn, at the end of the film, Thompson is the closest person to truly understanding and knowing Kane.
Let's contrast the world view of Kane with his presentation to the audience at the beginning of the film. I'll touch briefly on Kane as a child, and the swing into the Kane who writes the Declaration of Principles. I want to mention the scene of Kane as a child, playing in the snow only to call attention to the mise-en-scene of the sequence. Here Kane's parents (or more correctly his mother) is signing Kane away to live with Thatcher, the banker. The staging of the actors is such that the child Kane is framed by the actors and by the window as he plays in the snow. He is innocently have fun while the decision that will affect the rest of his life is being made. This staging will be repeated later in the film when Kane is at the top of his form at the Inquirer, dancing with the showgirls. While this is not the best example of mise-en-scene in film, it is one of the simplest scenes to understand. I personally find the concept of mise-en-scene difficult to wrap my brain around, and this example has always struck me with a kind of simplistic example of mise-en-scene. But let's move on.
When the young vibrant newspaper tycoon Kane is presented to the audience for the first time it is done with a scene transition that is pitch perfect. As Thatcher is reading various headlines form the Inquirer in various locations he finally come to the last headline of the montage and bends the paper in half revealing Kane, played very well by Orson Welles himself. This is really the first example in the film of Welles' passing time visually in some of the most effective and succinct sequences in motion picture history. This technique is later repeated with the "circulation" amount inscribed on the window of the Inquirer, the disintegration of Kane's first marriage (breakfast table sequence), the opera house (both setting up and during the performance), etc. What I want to draw from this sequence is that Kane is now being presented through the memory of Thatcher. He is presented as a sharp tongued, handsome young man who is more concerned with morality than money. This presentation is a direct contrast between the "old fool" presented in the March of Times reel. You could argue that the presentation is so different due to the age of Kane in the story, but I contend that the difference is more focused than that. Welles wants us to be impressed with Kane at this stage of the game, and indeed we are. Kane's wit is perhaps best exemplified by one of my favorite lines from the film. When describing himself Kane says "Charles Foster Kane is a scoundrel, his paper should be run out of town. A committee should be formed to boycott him. You may, if you can form such a committee, put me down for a contribution of one thousand dollars." They don't write them like that anymore. It is this Kane who writes his Declaration of Principles, a document that is later used in one of the film's most tragic scenes.
As Citizen Kane progresses, Kane himself dwindles from this sharp crusader for the people into a more selfish figure. I don't believe it's a coincidence that this turn begins when we begin to see Kane through the eyes of his best friend Jed Leland. Leland, who claims that if Kane ever had a friend it was he, paints Kane in cold, calculating terms. As someone who almost always was playing an angle. He says of Kane, "He never gave anything away, he just left you a tip." Towards the end of Leland's story, we see Kane loosing the election for Governor and get a sharp, comical look into Kane's attitude when Bernstein makes the decision of which headline to run in the next day's Inquirer. The two options: "Kane Elected" or "Fraud at Polls." Never an admission of defeat from Charles Foster Kane.
At this point I think we can begin to see the arch of Kane's character. To start as a sharp, likable young man, and to slip into a ruthless, stubborn, egotistical old guy is essentially the wave of the story. But it's the way that Welles has taken us on this arch that's significant. The audience, by virtue of seeing everything laid out in the film really has the strongest indication of who Kane is and WHY Kane is. This becomes especially clear on repeat viewings. As an audience we know why Kane cannot resign himself to defeat ... at least we can know in an individual interpretive sense. That is a gift that Welles gives to us that he doesn't give to any character in the film. We can disagree with Kane, we can fault Kane, we can even dismiss Kane, but I believe that this is a very strong and clever way to have the audience sympathetic to a seemingly unsympathetic man. Citizen Kane as a film is not alone in making the unsympathetic sympathetic, but I would say that it is a prime example, and it does possess a certain extra something for bringing the audience to this conclusion by showing the man through the eyes of character who don't particularly like Kane at the end of the film. One exception to that statement is Kane's second wife.
Kane's second wife, Susan is unique in the film as she's the only one that's ever shown really grieving for Kane. Even Bernstein, who was always at Kane's right hand isn't portrayed as sorrowful at Kane's passing. At the beginning of the film Susan is so broken down and out of it that she refuses to talk to anybody. Later, after some time passes she recounts her disdain for Kane to Thompson, but at the same time she admits that she cared about him.
By the time that Kane and Susan are married Kane is so scarred by the world that he's gone from any reasonable thought. As they're pulling away from the chapel Susan says that if she can't make it in the big opera houses then Charles will build her one. Kane replies to the reporter "That won't be necessary." Cut to a newspaper headline "Kane Builds Opera House." Through his whole relationship with Susan Kane never once considers what anyone wants other than himself. Susan blatantly admits that she doesn't want to sing, but Kane insists because he couldn't have possible been wrong in her abilities. He couldn't possible admit that the critics of the opera know more than he does. But deep down, Kane knows the truth of the situation as demonstrated by Kane being the one to finish Leland's negative review of Susan's abilities. Susan, however, finally figures Kane out, at least figures him out in the small pocket of his life that she shares. She leaves him while they're entertaining guests at Xanadu (the house, not the roller disco). She knows that is the time to injure Kane the most. Kane's initial effort to convince her not to leave is by saying that the guest will know she has left him.
It should also be noted that Kane's relationship with Susan runs a little deeper than what the audience is even clued in on. When they first meet Kane says that he was going to a warehouse that contained his family's things, placed there after his mother died. I submit that Rosebud was most certainly in that warehouse and Kane was attempting to find his childhood again. But there was something about Susan that kept Kane from the thing that he wanted most throughout his whole life. This struck me as I was rewatching the film preparing for this conversation. I don't have any deeper interpretation here, just enough of a clue to bring up the subject.
The film ends with no one but the audience knowing what "Rosebud" means. Thompson contemplates that no one's life can be summed up by a single word or thought and that Kane is as much of a mystery in death as he was in life. Thompson pity's Kane more than anyone else in the film because he, as a character, is the closest to an audience member, watching much of the narrative unfold. This, to me, is a powerful statement regarding the character of people. We form opinions of the people in our lives, and may even think that we know them, but human beings are so complex that we can only know each other in the context of the time we interact with a person. We interpolate the rest, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. So in our lives we are all Kane to some extent. Misunderstood and unfairly judged.
Citizen Kane is so layered that I've only touched on a fraction of the thoughts that I have about the film, but I feel that I've probably written more than my fair share. I'll just say that these are a few of the reasons that I love this film. Is it the number one film ever? It just might be.
Since it's release in 1941, Citizen Kane has been lauded, attacked, rediscovered, lauded some more, nearly destroyed, restored, threatened to be colorized, praised, denounced, and proclaimed the greatest American movie ever made. And that's just a gross abbreviation. Why this film? Why Kane? How did Orson Welles in his mid twenties make a movie that will last forever at or near the top of every greatest movie list? I don't presume that I can answer questions like that when sixty plus years of film criticism and theory have been written about Citizen Kane. What I can say is that I dearly love this film. I thoroughly enjoy it from start to finish, though I can certainly see how some can dismiss it or find it uninteresting. There is something so pure about Citizen Kane that even the first time I saw it, when I was about twelve years old, I was captivated by it.
It is a film released in 1941, with 1941 sensibilities, but it feels fresh, like it could have been made last year. Part of that remarkable "newness" of Kane comes from the way the film was shot. Dolly shots, camera angles, non-linear structure, overlapping dialog, lighting, Welles played with all of these things in a way that was completely new. This is an interesting point, because Welles didn't invent any of the filmmaking tools that he used, he was just the first to combine them into one film. At that, Kane is a hodgepodge of camera techniques, a mishmash of staging, and a cacophony of sound. I would love to know how Kane felt to an audience in 1941. All of the research that I could find says that Kane was a well-reviewed and well-received film (with the exception of Hurst papers), but I have to wonder if the picture was a bit of a shock to the system. I wonder if it felt too busy, or crammed with too many flairs of Welles' conglomeration of cinematic language.
Welles's combining of these film techniques onto a single canvas is not unlike Tarantino today. With Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, (to a lesser extent) Jackie Brown, and (to a greater extent) Kill Bill we see Tarantino collecting the best pieces of cinema from around the world and combining them into one picture at a time and essentially forming a new set of cinematic rules. I bring this up during this discussion of Citizen Kane because I think the comparison can fully bring the concept of what Welles was doing to mind. I see a very clear parallel between how Tarantino crafts a film and how Orson Welles crafted Citizen Kane. This could very easily springboard into a thesis on shared cultural ideas, or perhaps a debate about the merits of appropriation in art, but that would be expanding farther than I want to expand. Fascinating though it might be. This could also dwindle into an argument about comparing Tarantino to Welles, which is also not my intention. It's just an observation that I've had for some time.
So why do I like Citizen Kane so much? I guess the short answer would be that I empathies with Charles Foster Kane. This figure of a man who by all accounts should be scorned by everyone, or at the very least forgotten, is to me a bastion of pity. I would also argue that Welles sets Kane up in the film to be just that: A character to be pitied. Welles uses the beginning of the film to have our minds focused to this. We are introduced initially to Kane's environment: A no trespassing sign, grounds that are fenced in and littered with all manner of useless items. Kane lives in a house that is incomplete and dark. His surroundings were designed to keep people out, physically and emotionally, a direct parallel to Kane's life. Once this environmental introduction is complete, Kane dies and utters his mysterious word, "Rosebud." No one is around Kane. Only a maid comes to his bedside to pull the covers fully over his corpse. The snow globe that was Kane's second most cherished possession, lays broken on the floor. From this somber scene we are quickly taken into the March of Time newsreel sequence.
To me it's very important to realize who is telling the story through Citizen Kane. Perception is a key component of this film and it plays heavily into the interpretation. During the March of Times reel, the point of view is that of Thompson's, the reporter who put the reel together and who will go on a quest to discover the meaning of "Rosebud." This is a man who never knew Kane in person. Instead he just knows Kane through the papers, stories, and footage that exist of the enigmatic tycoon. His view of Kane is almost a mocking tone. Frequently the March of Time reel points out the follies of Kane. Meeting with Hitler, the political scandal that Kane found himself involved in, the closing of his newspapers, etc. Perhaps most striking during this sequence is the scene of Kane applying mortar to a cornerstone. Here, and only here, is Kane portrayed in the film as a sort of bumbling idiot. He drops mortar on himself, he gets bumped around by the construction crew. He is a figure to be mocked and laughed at. Thompson, and indeed the world, at this point view Kane in this fashion. The man has no dignity, commands no respect, and in all honesty, Kane probably deserves that kind of image. Thompson is representing the view of Kane from a worldly perspective, and he honestly represents that view based on the structure and content of the March of Time reel. In a fantastic turn, at the end of the film, Thompson is the closest person to truly understanding and knowing Kane.
Let's contrast the world view of Kane with his presentation to the audience at the beginning of the film. I'll touch briefly on Kane as a child, and the swing into the Kane who writes the Declaration of Principles. I want to mention the scene of Kane as a child, playing in the snow only to call attention to the mise-en-scene of the sequence. Here Kane's parents (or more correctly his mother) is signing Kane away to live with Thatcher, the banker. The staging of the actors is such that the child Kane is framed by the actors and by the window as he plays in the snow. He is innocently have fun while the decision that will affect the rest of his life is being made. This staging will be repeated later in the film when Kane is at the top of his form at the Inquirer, dancing with the showgirls. While this is not the best example of mise-en-scene in film, it is one of the simplest scenes to understand. I personally find the concept of mise-en-scene difficult to wrap my brain around, and this example has always struck me with a kind of simplistic example of mise-en-scene. But let's move on.
When the young vibrant newspaper tycoon Kane is presented to the audience for the first time it is done with a scene transition that is pitch perfect. As Thatcher is reading various headlines form the Inquirer in various locations he finally come to the last headline of the montage and bends the paper in half revealing Kane, played very well by Orson Welles himself. This is really the first example in the film of Welles' passing time visually in some of the most effective and succinct sequences in motion picture history. This technique is later repeated with the "circulation" amount inscribed on the window of the Inquirer, the disintegration of Kane's first marriage (breakfast table sequence), the opera house (both setting up and during the performance), etc. What I want to draw from this sequence is that Kane is now being presented through the memory of Thatcher. He is presented as a sharp tongued, handsome young man who is more concerned with morality than money. This presentation is a direct contrast between the "old fool" presented in the March of Times reel. You could argue that the presentation is so different due to the age of Kane in the story, but I contend that the difference is more focused than that. Welles wants us to be impressed with Kane at this stage of the game, and indeed we are. Kane's wit is perhaps best exemplified by one of my favorite lines from the film. When describing himself Kane says "Charles Foster Kane is a scoundrel, his paper should be run out of town. A committee should be formed to boycott him. You may, if you can form such a committee, put me down for a contribution of one thousand dollars." They don't write them like that anymore. It is this Kane who writes his Declaration of Principles, a document that is later used in one of the film's most tragic scenes.
As Citizen Kane progresses, Kane himself dwindles from this sharp crusader for the people into a more selfish figure. I don't believe it's a coincidence that this turn begins when we begin to see Kane through the eyes of his best friend Jed Leland. Leland, who claims that if Kane ever had a friend it was he, paints Kane in cold, calculating terms. As someone who almost always was playing an angle. He says of Kane, "He never gave anything away, he just left you a tip." Towards the end of Leland's story, we see Kane loosing the election for Governor and get a sharp, comical look into Kane's attitude when Bernstein makes the decision of which headline to run in the next day's Inquirer. The two options: "Kane Elected" or "Fraud at Polls." Never an admission of defeat from Charles Foster Kane.
At this point I think we can begin to see the arch of Kane's character. To start as a sharp, likable young man, and to slip into a ruthless, stubborn, egotistical old guy is essentially the wave of the story. But it's the way that Welles has taken us on this arch that's significant. The audience, by virtue of seeing everything laid out in the film really has the strongest indication of who Kane is and WHY Kane is. This becomes especially clear on repeat viewings. As an audience we know why Kane cannot resign himself to defeat ... at least we can know in an individual interpretive sense. That is a gift that Welles gives to us that he doesn't give to any character in the film. We can disagree with Kane, we can fault Kane, we can even dismiss Kane, but I believe that this is a very strong and clever way to have the audience sympathetic to a seemingly unsympathetic man. Citizen Kane as a film is not alone in making the unsympathetic sympathetic, but I would say that it is a prime example, and it does possess a certain extra something for bringing the audience to this conclusion by showing the man through the eyes of character who don't particularly like Kane at the end of the film. One exception to that statement is Kane's second wife.
Kane's second wife, Susan is unique in the film as she's the only one that's ever shown really grieving for Kane. Even Bernstein, who was always at Kane's right hand isn't portrayed as sorrowful at Kane's passing. At the beginning of the film Susan is so broken down and out of it that she refuses to talk to anybody. Later, after some time passes she recounts her disdain for Kane to Thompson, but at the same time she admits that she cared about him.
By the time that Kane and Susan are married Kane is so scarred by the world that he's gone from any reasonable thought. As they're pulling away from the chapel Susan says that if she can't make it in the big opera houses then Charles will build her one. Kane replies to the reporter "That won't be necessary." Cut to a newspaper headline "Kane Builds Opera House." Through his whole relationship with Susan Kane never once considers what anyone wants other than himself. Susan blatantly admits that she doesn't want to sing, but Kane insists because he couldn't have possible been wrong in her abilities. He couldn't possible admit that the critics of the opera know more than he does. But deep down, Kane knows the truth of the situation as demonstrated by Kane being the one to finish Leland's negative review of Susan's abilities. Susan, however, finally figures Kane out, at least figures him out in the small pocket of his life that she shares. She leaves him while they're entertaining guests at Xanadu (the house, not the roller disco). She knows that is the time to injure Kane the most. Kane's initial effort to convince her not to leave is by saying that the guest will know she has left him.
It should also be noted that Kane's relationship with Susan runs a little deeper than what the audience is even clued in on. When they first meet Kane says that he was going to a warehouse that contained his family's things, placed there after his mother died. I submit that Rosebud was most certainly in that warehouse and Kane was attempting to find his childhood again. But there was something about Susan that kept Kane from the thing that he wanted most throughout his whole life. This struck me as I was rewatching the film preparing for this conversation. I don't have any deeper interpretation here, just enough of a clue to bring up the subject.
The film ends with no one but the audience knowing what "Rosebud" means. Thompson contemplates that no one's life can be summed up by a single word or thought and that Kane is as much of a mystery in death as he was in life. Thompson pity's Kane more than anyone else in the film because he, as a character, is the closest to an audience member, watching much of the narrative unfold. This, to me, is a powerful statement regarding the character of people. We form opinions of the people in our lives, and may even think that we know them, but human beings are so complex that we can only know each other in the context of the time we interact with a person. We interpolate the rest, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. So in our lives we are all Kane to some extent. Misunderstood and unfairly judged.
Citizen Kane is so layered that I've only touched on a fraction of the thoughts that I have about the film, but I feel that I've probably written more than my fair share. I'll just say that these are a few of the reasons that I love this film. Is it the number one film ever? It just might be.
I finally had a break last night and watched Kane again. I see new things in this film each time I watch it - there is so much visual and narrative depth, you will only understand them on closer inspection.
Krestofre talks about how the "Singer" distracts Charles from going to find Rosebud. The irony is, he holds her almost as a prisoner at Xanadu - doing jigsaw puzzles, which arguably is a childish distraction. Also, in the montage, we seemingly never see her finish a puzzle. Is she trying to solve Charles Kane?
There are many visual and aural devices employed during these later scenes in his palace. Incredible deep focus in used extensively as are sets that go on forever - there is no intimacy (or pleasure for that matter) in Kane's stately pleasure dome.
Listen closely to the dialogue and you'll find that characters often beg pardon for not hearing one another. I found that I actually missed some of the lines because I too was distracted by the enormity of the set pieces! You almost have to listen without watching. Kane is trying to fill his lost childhood by buying almost everything he comes across. The one thing he cannot purchase at any price is his lost innocence. In particular, he collects vast amounts of European statuary, which are often idealized rederings of the human form.
After Susan leaves Kane alone at Xanadu, he is seen walking past stunned guests and servants down a long, columned hallway. For a moment, he passes between two room-size mirrors that line this hall. He is reflected again and again in them. This is a man who knows himself, that everything in his life is about him - that he is surrounded by himself, but completely alone. He doesn't stop or hesitate to look into the mirrors - he has the answer to what is in them.
The only intimacy seems to be between the butler and the reporter who converse on a grand staircase overlooking acres of Kane's boxed belongings. They are observers - not drawn personally into the vast, empty world of Xanadu.
He suffers tremendously for not having parents in his life - we don't hear of his mother again except when Susan and he talk vaguely of parents during their first encounter. It is implied that they had a plutonic relationship until his bid for election comes unravelled. Susan as a child seemed to bring him temporary solace - until his tireless drive to succeed ruins what was pure and innocent in their relationship.
I have much more on this, but I'm going to come back to it later when I've had a little more time to digest it.
e
Krestofre talks about how the "Singer" distracts Charles from going to find Rosebud. The irony is, he holds her almost as a prisoner at Xanadu - doing jigsaw puzzles, which arguably is a childish distraction. Also, in the montage, we seemingly never see her finish a puzzle. Is she trying to solve Charles Kane?
There are many visual and aural devices employed during these later scenes in his palace. Incredible deep focus in used extensively as are sets that go on forever - there is no intimacy (or pleasure for that matter) in Kane's stately pleasure dome.
Listen closely to the dialogue and you'll find that characters often beg pardon for not hearing one another. I found that I actually missed some of the lines because I too was distracted by the enormity of the set pieces! You almost have to listen without watching. Kane is trying to fill his lost childhood by buying almost everything he comes across. The one thing he cannot purchase at any price is his lost innocence. In particular, he collects vast amounts of European statuary, which are often idealized rederings of the human form.
After Susan leaves Kane alone at Xanadu, he is seen walking past stunned guests and servants down a long, columned hallway. For a moment, he passes between two room-size mirrors that line this hall. He is reflected again and again in them. This is a man who knows himself, that everything in his life is about him - that he is surrounded by himself, but completely alone. He doesn't stop or hesitate to look into the mirrors - he has the answer to what is in them.
The only intimacy seems to be between the butler and the reporter who converse on a grand staircase overlooking acres of Kane's boxed belongings. They are observers - not drawn personally into the vast, empty world of Xanadu.
He suffers tremendously for not having parents in his life - we don't hear of his mother again except when Susan and he talk vaguely of parents during their first encounter. It is implied that they had a plutonic relationship until his bid for election comes unravelled. Susan as a child seemed to bring him temporary solace - until his tireless drive to succeed ruins what was pure and innocent in their relationship.
I have much more on this, but I'm going to come back to it later when I've had a little more time to digest it.
e
Last edited:
Jeremy Ordan
Major Contributor
krestofre said:Has anyone else rewatched Kane? Planning to? Going to make comments?
Just curious.
I watched it last week and am going to sit through it one more time before I launch my comment barrage
Hairy Lime
Well-known member
Was on the road a lot and also flu-ridden in February, but still planning on watching Kane again and commenting. Great review, krestofre