Rosebud In Citizen Kane Essay
Rosebud in Citizen Kane
Rosebud is sled, Kane's sled when he was a boy. Rosebud is the
foundation of the film of citizen Kane. Rosebud is also Kane's last
words. He was a very important man, known globally. Rosebud is the
word everyone wants to understand the meaning of, so there is a hunt
to find the meaning of the word. This sets the story for the film.
Rosebud is a symbol of Kane, in that Rosebud represents his loss of
the ability to love and how to love. The film Citizen Kane has a lot
of direction meaning that every shot means something in its own way,
there is a hidden message in every movement of the camera. There was a
close up on the "NO TRESPASSING" sign emphasising the fact that the
person (Kane) was isolating him and didn't want anyone to disturb him.
The camera slowly pans up the fence, showing how tall the fence is
which is very high. This shows me that whoever lived there didn't want
anybody in, and wasn't taking any chances. The panning slowly goes up
into an angle where you can see the big castle and the big K symbol in
the head of the gate.
As the panning goes up it goes closer and closer to a lighted window,
this draws your attention and makes you wonder who is behind the walls
and the castle is of great power and wealth and probably very
isolated. Each shot of the scenery is dissolved into another slowly
leading up to the castle. The set design is gloomy and dull; the set
design reminds you of Dracula's dwellings. The music is moody and
brooding. Rosebud is made extremely important in that there is a very
close: close up of Kane's mouth as he says the word, Rosebud giving it
maximum importance. Kane drops the paper weight that shows a house,
this gives a clue to Rosebud straight away but it is very subtle,
there is no major importance made out of it till later. The camera
shoots the shot through the paper weight as the nurse comes in.
These direction techniques create a lot of tension because up to the
point where the word Rosebud comes out of Kane's mouth there is a lot
of tension and suspense because we are wondering who is behind the
castle, and the camera doesn't give anything away. And to create
further tension and a man says Rosebud and we have no clues. In the
second sequence we find out more about Kane himself, exactly how
important he was. In the second sequence we find out Kane is globally
well known as newspapers all over the world wrote his death as front
page news. We also find that he was in politics, the media and into
forestry and doubled ownership. Kan's image is his biggest selling
point. In this sequence we find out that Rosebud was Kane's last
words, and that someone's last word could say a lot about the person.
Rosebud sets up the narrative motivation in that the audience and Mr
Thompson want to know what the meaning behind Rosebud...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
Mise-en-scene in Citizen Kane and Persona619 words - 2 pages Mise-en-scene in Citizen Kane and Persona Mise-en-scene is the principle by which a piece of film will derive its meaning wholly from what happens in the single shot and not from the relationship between two shots. For example the director might include shots with various composition, angle, depth, movement, and lighting. Citizen Kane has many good examples to show Mise-on-scene usage. The scene that I believe is the most significant and...
Film Noir and German Expressionism in: "Batman" and "Citizen Kane"987 words - 4 pages In the films, "Batman" (1989), directed by Tim Burton, and "Citizen Kane" (1941), directed by Orson Welles, there are many Codes and Structures of German Expressionism and Film Noir. The films show these through the institution of the American family, masculinity, history of colonialism and colonization, and Film Noir and German...
Comparing Life Without Meaning in Eliot’s The Waste Land and Welles’ Citizen Kane2173 words - 9 pages Life Without Meaning in T. S. Eliot’s The Waste Land and Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane It is the foundation of modern civilization that knowledge is better than ignorance, understanding more valuable than confusion, and wisdom more desirable than foolishness. Consequently, people feel that they should be able to understand the meaning of life and, in doing so, know that their lives are not in vain. They want life to be a coherent whole infused...
Characteristics of a Totalitarian Government Portrayed in the Film, Citizen Kane1827 words - 7 pages Citizen Kane, released in 1941, is one of America’s greatest films. The film is widely considered a cautionary tale for the late 1930’s and the early 1940’s. The main character, Charles Foster Kane is portrayed as a character that is similar to the totalitarian dictators that came about during this time period, such as Adolf Hitler. Totalitarian dictatorships have the goals of creating unity among the masses and obtaining control over...
How effective is the portrayal of the independent self in "Citizen Kane".990 words - 4 pages The portrayal of the independent self, through the protagonist Charles Kane, in Citizen Kane is no doubt effective. It is a 'prismatic' movie concerning the life of a famous American seen from different points of view and shows a man who is inclined towards independence."Citizen Kane" is a film predominantly about a man whose past becomes manifested in his...
Citizen Kane1516 words - 6 pages "Charles Foster Kane- a whole collection of a jigsaw puzzle" In the course of Citizen...
Citizen Kane1289 words - 5 pages Citizen Kane Like a number of Orson Welle's other films, Citizen Kane begins with the end--the death of
Citizen Kane: Summary916 words - 4 pages The film Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles, is a grand example of how a man can be corrupted by wealth. Through the characters in the film it can be observed how
Citizen Kane990 words - 4 pages The film Citizen Kane, directed by Orson Welles, is a great example of how a man can be corrupted by wealth. Through the characters in the film we can observe how Charles Foster Kane, an idealistic man with principles, can be changed and misguided by wealth and what accompanies wealth. The film takes places during the late 19th century and early 20th century, a time in American history when the world is changing and wealth is a great power to...
The Crucible, Citizen Kane, Newspaper978 words - 4 pages The film Citizen Kane directed by Orson Welles shows us a multifaceted view of Charles Fost Kane. He...
Citizen Kane: Film Analysis590 words - 2 pages The film Citizen Kane by Orson Welles, opens with a picture of a castle with a windowthat has a...
Spitting Image once made a joke about Orson Welles – that he lived his life in reverse. The idea, effectively, is that Welles started life as a fat actor who got his first break doing TV commercials for wine, moved on to bigger character roles as fat men, but used his fees to help finance indie films which he directed himself; their modest, growing success gave him the energy and self-esteem to lose weight. Then the major Hollywood studios gave him the chance to direct big-budget pictures, over which he gained more and more artistic control until he made his culminating mature masterpiece: Citizen Kane, the story of the doomed press baron Charlie Kane – played by Welles himself, partly based on WR Hearst – and told in a dazzling series of fragments, shards, jigsaw pieces and reflected images.
Poor, poor Orson Welles: repeatedly talked about as a tragic disappointment, his achievements somehow held against him, as if he had culpably outlived his own genius. After all, he only created arguably the greatest Hollywood movie in history, only directed a string of brilliant films, only won the top prize at Cannes, only produced some of the most groundbreaking theatre on Broadway, only reinvented the mass medium of radio, and in his political speeches, only energised the progressive and anti-racist movement in postwar America. As the room service waiter in the five-star hotel said to George Best: “Where did it all go wrong?”
Perhaps it is the fault of Citizen Kane itself, that mysterious, almost Elizabethan fable of kingship, which so seductively posits the coexistence of greatness and failure. Martin Scorsese, in his brilliant commentary on the film, said that cinema normally generates empathy for its heroes, but the enigma of Kane frustrates this process. The audience wants to know and love Kane, but can’t – so this need to love was displaced on to Welles himself, and accounted for his immense popularity and celebrity in the 1940s. It is the same with cinema: however immersive, however sensual, however stunningly effective at igniting almost childlike sympathy and love, cinema withholds the inner life of its human characters, while exposing the externals: the faces, the bodies, the buildings, the streetscapes, the sunsets.
The story of Charles Foster Kane is a troubled one: the headstrong newspaper proprietor who makes a brilliant marriage to the niece of the US president and takes a principled democratic stand for the little guy against monopoly capitalism, but only to reinforce his own prerogatives, and only in an attempt to pre-empt the growth of trade unionism. And Kane’s own political ambitions, like those of Charles Stewart Parnell in Ireland, are destroyed by sexual transgression: an affair with a singer who is to become his second wife. Kane’s indiscretion generates precisely the kind of salacious, destructive news story that he had pioneered in his own newspapers.
Diminished by the Wall Street crash and personal catastrophe, Kane becomes a pro-appeasement isolationist, complacently unconcerned about European fascism, though in his youth cheerfully willing to indulge the idea of a short circulation-boosting war with Spain. He dies in the present day, in 1941 – Citizen Kane was released seven months before Pearl Harbor. Kane himself becomes a remote figure, enervated and paralysed by his mythic wealth, somewhere between Scott Fitzgerald’s Jay Gatsby and Adam Verver, the unimaginably rich art collector in Henry James’s The Golden Bowl.
But how about that tiny detail that Kane’s would-be biographers believe is the key to everything? The murmured word on his deathbed: “Rosebud”. It is a mystery which they fail to solve, but we do not – it relates to Kane’s last moments of childhood innocence and happiness, playing in the snow before his bank-trustee appointed guardian, the Dickensian Mr Thatcher, comes to take him away to prepare for him his lonely new life as a 20th-century American oligarch. Kane’s business manager, Mr Bernstein, played by Everett Sloane, tells us never to underestimate the importance of tiny moments, and famously remarks that never a month goes by without him thinking of a fleeting glimpse he had once of a beautiful girl in a white dress and parasol. Never a week goes by without me thinking of that scene, without me trying to imagine that woman’s beauty, and who might play her in a flashback scene (I suggest Mary Astor) and of the awful fact that Everett Sloane was to become obsessed with his own ugliness and addicted to cosmetic surgery.
For any journalist, Citizen Kane is a glorious, subversive, pessimistic film. We all know what newspaper journalists are supposed to be like in the movies: funny, smart, wisecracking, likable heroes. Not in Citizen Kane, they’re not. Journalists are nobodies. The person who counts is the owner. And Welles’s Charlie Kane is not even a self-made man. He had his wealth handed to him. He was never the underdog. Haughty, impulsive, charming and charismatic: the 25-year‑old Welles is so handsome, leonine, with an intelligent, perennially amused face, like a young Bob Hope.
I’ve lost count of the times I’ve watched the scene in which he first shows up with what we would now call his entourage at the offices of the New York Inquirer, the little underperforming paper he seizes on as the cornerstone of his future career – rather in the way Rupert Murdoch started with the Adelaide News. He blows through that dusty office like a whirlwind. Kane derides the idea of his paper remaining closed 12 hours a day: later, he will buy an opera house for his wife to sing in and for his newspapers to promote. And so Kane, in fiction, invented the idea of rolling 24‑hour news, and a vertically integrated infotainment empire. Welles himself had a newspaper column for many years after Kane, and I suspect he thought of himself as in some ways a newspaper proprietor with other people’s money. He told Peter Bogdanovich in their celebrated interview series in 1969 that he never saw Citizen Kane again after watching a finished print in an empty Los Angeles cinema six months before it opened in 1941 – and never stayed to watch the film at the premiere. Perhaps the image of Kane’s failure became increasingly painful.
One of the main characters is Jedediah Leland, played by Joseph Cotten with his handsome, sensitive face. Kane’s college buddy, he has been kept around as a corporate courtier and is, in Leland’s own words, a “stooge”. He has given Kane an intense loyalty which never quite becomes friendship, and gets the job as the drama critic who must review the woeful professional debut of Kane’s second wife, Susan, played by Dorothy Comingore. Leland is pathetic, with neither the cunning to suppress his opinion, nor the courage to express it plainly. He slumps drunk over his typewriter and in an ecstasy of self-hate and masochistic defiance and despair, Kane completes the review himself. Critics are always implicated in the system, says Kane, and the system’s owners are exposed by their attempts to show themselves independent.
Kane has his parallels with British newspaper bosses – in fact, I’m always surprised that the comparison isn’t made more often. He is very like Lord Copper, owner of The Beast in Evelyn Waugh’s novel Scoop, who appreciated the excitement of short, sharp foreign wars. “The Beast stands for strong mutually antagonistic governments everywhere,” said Copper, and to a reporter who has just cabled that there is no war in Cuba, Kane replies: “You provide the prose-poems, I’ll provide the war.” Waugh also said that Lord Copper loved to give banquets, and “it would be an understatement to say that no one enjoyed them more than the host, for no one else enjoyed them at all.” I think of that line every time I watch the magnificent scene in Kane showing the banquet given to celebrate the Inquirer’s success – with dancing girls brought in, shouldering sparkly cardboard-cutout rifles, in honour of America’s forthcoming war with Spain. Cotten’s tense, tired face and sad smile hints at an awful truth: despite Kane’s boyish glee and the apparent general raucous excitement, it might be a terrible strain and unspoken humiliation for these salaried employees to pretend to be enjoying themselves worshipping their boss. I wonder how many newspaper bosses have watched that scene and taken it as a how-to guide for triumphalism at work.
It also reminds me of a strange moment in my life: 20 years ago, I was invited to a colossal party at the Earth Gallery in London’s Natural History Museum, hosted by Sir David English, legendary editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail. It was a lavish, but strangely tense occasion, a notionally generous send off for an editor whom English had forced into retirement. After a speech full of clenched and insincere bonhomie, the editor-in-chief brusquely asked us all to raise our champagne glasses – he did so himself, his arm extended. It was an uncomfortable moment, and quite a few people had on their faces Cotten’s strained smile from Citizen Kane.
Moments are what we are left with in Citizen Kane: a pointilliste constellation of gleaming moments from which we can never quite stand far enough back to see the bigger picture in its entirety. One of the most stomach-turning is the “picnic” that Kane offers to give Susan in a moment of drowsy ennui. Kane and Susan begin to argue in their private tent while music and dancing begin outside, becoming more abandoned and maybe even orgiastic. Welles orchestrates these sounds contrapuntally with the couple’s quarrel, they climax with a strange sound of screaming, as if Kane and Susan’s own malaise had been projected to the party outside.
The scenes of Kane and Susan together in Xanadu are eerie: an Expressionist bad dream, all darkness and weird perspectives, the couple marooned in the gigantic, sinister house, Kane prowling up to Susan while she morosely fits together a jigsaw. Kane wanders to a bizarrely huge fireplace and for a second he looks tiny, and Xanadu looks like the giant’s lair from Jack and the Beanstalk.
And yet Welles’s scenes with Ruth Warrick, playing his first wife, Emily, are no less vibrant, no less meaningful, especially on their arrival home for breakfast as young marrieds, having partied all night – and contemplating going to bed, but not to sleep. It is subtle but still a sexy scene.
It circles back to Rosebud: the anti-riddle of the anti-Sphinx. Welles himself playfully claimed that the word was Hearst’s own term for his wife’s genitalia, and so naturally the mogul was annoyed. Another false trail. The murmuring of “Rosebud” is in one way the film’s teasing offer of synecdoche: the part for the whole, the one jigsaw piece that is in fact the whole puzzle. But it isn’t.
Rosebud is more probably Welles’s intuition of the illusory flashback effect of memory that will affect all of us, particularly at the very end of our lives: the awful conviction that childhood memories are better, simpler, more real than adult memories – that childhood memories are the only things which are real. The remembered details of early existence – moments, sensations and images – have an arbitrary poetic authenticity which is a by-product of being detached from the prosaic context and perspective which encumbers adult minds, the rational understanding which would rob them of their mysterious force. We all have around two or three radioactive Rosebud fragments of childhood memory in our minds, which will return on our deathbeds to mock the insubstantial dream of our lives.
This brings me to my own “Rosebud” theory of the film, the moment that may or may not explain everything. It is in fact the moment that isn’t there, a shocking, ghostly absence that Welles allows you to grasp only after the movie is over: the death of his first wife and his son in an automobile accident. We only hear of it in the newsreel about Kane that begins the film – the brief roundup that we are invited to believe does not get to the heart of the man. But that is the last we hear of it. It happens two years into his second marriage. When does Kane hear this terrible news himself? How does he react to the death of his first wife and his adored little boy? We never know. Welles leaves it out – perhaps he is saying that Kane did not react, that he is too blank, too emotionally nullified, too spiritually deracinated to respond, having made his own complete and ruinous emotional investment in himself, the same egocentricity of self‑esteem culture and image management that has now been miniaturised and democratised in the age of social media. Kane has the plutocrat’s obsession with trying to control those around him in the way that he controls his media empire, whose purpose in turn is to control the way people think. And this is the final unspoken moral of Citizen Kane: a terrible tragedy of ownership and egotism – a narcissistic drowning.
• The Essay: Being Orson series begins on Radio 3 on Monday. Peter Bradshaw’s “Why Citizen Kane Matters” will be broadcast on Wednesday.