History Headscratchers / CitizenKane

** Kane could have been named after a parental uncle.

* I'm surprised that nobody else has mentioned this but that campaign poster of Kane from his run for governor is very creepy. He looks like a dirty old man/possible sex offender. Who would vote for someone who looked so disturbing?

** She probably ''did'' visit him, just obviously not often enough.

*** The power of celebrity. Kane wasn't just a successful buisinessman, he was an extravagant spender, grand self-promoter and major political candidate. Joe Public knew his name because he damn well wanted them to. You don't have to be well-liked to be legendary.

** It's also likely that it wasn't intended to be a part of the story; the Hays Code, in effect at the time, frowned upon divorce and adultery. That's why it's never confirmed that Susan and Kane were physically involved while he was married, for example. It's possible that Emily and their son's death was written in to appease censors by having Kane be a widower rather than a divorcee, and wasn't further explored because it wasn't something that was ever intended to be significant.
* Why didnt Kane chose the third option when he got cornered by the extortion by declaring that he was looking for talent in form of a singer and why didnt he asked her to sing to prove that he actually has a point and all this problem its just a meaningless misunderstanding and make Gettys look like an idiot while winning the ladies trust back.

* The main plot point of Kane being taken from his family doesn't make a lot of sense. First of all it is implied that Kane's mother wanted to get him away from an abusive father based on the fact that his father talks about giving Kane a "good thrashing." This was the year 1871..a good thrashing was standard parenting back then...this was not considered abusive by the standards of the time. Besides...how bad could his dad have been if Charles spends the rest of his life lamenting being taken from his parents? He wished he had never been taken from his childhood home so obviously it wasn't the horrible environment his mother seemed to think it was.He doesn't seem to have any PTSD from abuse so I doubt his father was really so horrible. And why does his mother sign him over to some random banker instead of a family member or friend? She seriously did not know one other person who could take Charles in? Not one? No brothers or sisters or close friends? What would be the banker's incentive to raise some random kid he didn't even know? Thatcher doesn't seem to be the warm and fuzzy type of guy who loves kids. What was his motivation anyway? This scene also implies this is the last time that Charles sees his mother. Why? She couldn't pop in once a year to see hello to her son? What's the problem here? She has plenty of money to travel now. This is a great film but these crucial details are never really explained.

* The main plot point of Kane being taken from his family doesn't make a lot of sense. First of all it is implied that Kane's mother wanted to get him away from an abusive father based on the fact that his father talks about giving Kane a "good thrashing." This was the year 1871..a good thrashing was standard parenting back then...this was not considered abusive by the standards of the time. Besides...how bad could his dad have been if Charles spends the rest of his life lamenting being taken from his parents? He doesn't seem to have any PTSD from abuse so I doubt his father was really so horrible. And why does his mother sign him over to some random banker instead of a family member or friend? She seriously did not know one other person who could take Charles in? Not one? No brothers or sisters or close friends? What would be the banker's incentive to raise some random kid he didn't even know? Thatcher doesn't seem to be the warm and fuzzy type of guy who loves kids. What was his motivation anyway? This scene also implies this is the last time that Charles sees his mother. Why? She couldn't pop in once a year to see hello to her son? What's the problem here? She has plenty of money to travel now. This is a great film but these crucial details are never really explained.

* The main plot point of Kane being taken from his family doesn't make a lot of sense. First of all it is implied that Kane's mother wanted to get him away from his an abusive father based on the fact that his father talks about giving Kane a "good thrashing." This was the year 1871..a good thrashing was standard parenting back then...this was not considered abusive by the standards of the time. Besides...how bad could his dad have been if Charles spends the rest of his life lamenting being taken from his parents? He doesn't seem to have any PTSD from abuse so I doubt his father was really so horrible. And why does his mother sign him over to some random banker instead of a family member or friend? She seriously did not know one other person who could take Charles in? Not one? What would be the banker's incentive to raise some random kid he didn't even know? Thatcher doesn't seem to be the warm and fuzzy type of guy who loves kids. What was his motivation anyway? This scene also implies this is the last time that Charles sees his mother. Why? She couldn't pop in once a year to see hello to her son? What's the problem here? She has plenty of money to travel now. This is a great film but these crucial details are never really explained.

** Also, "dying alone" doesn't necessarily mean literally died in a room all by himself. It means that he died without anyone who cared about him. He had no family or friends. The only people he had left were servants he was paying to be there, and they could leave at any time to find another person to work for. He "died alone" in that regards that he had no one who loved him at the end of his life.

* Most of you already know that the movie isn't famous for its story but on HOW that story is told, and i have seen repeatedly that it was thanks to the innovation on the language of cinema that gave this movie the status of "Best Of All Times". However, if no one ever tried that before, then why did Orson Welles did them anyway? how did he know that doing a low angle will work the way it was? Lets take for example the scene of him being a kid and the movie uses the "deep focus" to have him visible playing in the background while the parents talk, why it had to be done that way? what nudged him to do it that way only? would the scene be any different if it was done in other way? What i am trying to say is that is that i find no reason to do such things if they were there to look cool, that will be like "The Dutch Angle" that the movie Battlefield Earth did for the whole thing.....for some reason that was never explored or added anything to the movie, so why is it there? I am not insulting the intelligence of The Man itself but if i were a movie director of that era and had a chance something cool, i will probably skip it if i find that there is no real reason to do it, if there is one, then most likely there is information or books around film-making or a set of rules that Welles subverted or learned from to make this innovative movie. It is just that i find hard to believe that NO ONE tried anything new or at least ONE of the things that he did in a single movie unless the corruption of Hollywood was so firm that it only allowed one kind of movie structure or something.
** Most of this rambling and error-riddled post is only vaguely comprehensible to me, but it might be good to remember that Welles screened Creator/JohnFord's ''Film/{{Stagecoach}}'' forty times while prepping for Citizen Kane. Its techniques did not come out of nowhere, and nobody can claim otherwise.
*** Then why is this "The Best Movie of All Time" again? We already established that story-wise, the movie doesn't offer anything new and if the cinematography was something that was already done before then what is left? That fictional award that every critic gives to this movie is now useless if you say that the techniques DID came from somewhere. This movie is being lauded as being innovative for its time after all, so what stopped everyone ELSE in the business to do something like Welles did? Was there a code that didn't allow for more "artistic" scenes and had to be done in the most cheap way possible? was Welles the first director to ever receive some kind of special treatment of "full control" and that is why he could borrow without anyone calling him out on it?
*** I don't understand: is there a reason why "Best Movie of All Time" needs to be "The Movie Made With No Artistic Predecessors Whatsoever!"?
*** Apparently yes because that IS the reason for why the movie is the Best Ever. And its something that really makes my head hurts, because if that is the case, then the first movie of ''Franchise/StarWars'' should, under that definition, count as The Best Ever for using cinematography that no one ever tried before and being innovative (The tunnel of The Death Star, anyone?) yet somehow it doesn't, even if they are ALSO the same on having a very simple plot (maybe is the stigma of Sci-Fi Ghetto?). In the other hand, since you actually confirmed that he ACTUALLY took inspiration on other movies, then this little bit of information on the page of "Achievements in Ignorance" is in doubt and possibly wrong: "Many of the innovative visuals and special effects seen in ''Citizen Kane'' are the result of first-time film director Orson Welles simply refusing to believe that certain things couldn't be done on screen. " I believe that there isn't many reasons for this movie to be THAT good as they said since, as you said, there isn't much original material to merit that title, and the only reason the movie is popular is that maybe the public and the critics felt guilty for the movie to bomb at the box office back then (quite understandable since it wasn't the movie's fault but it was Randolph Hearst). They worshipped it in overcompensation and the hype went out of hand.
*** Who are this "they" you are talking about? This is the ultimate straw-man argument -- you haven't identified the people whom you're arguing against, and invent arguments to put in their mouths rather than citing anything specific. Are you talking about the critics and scholars who initially canonized the film, or internet half-wits repeating vague claims today? Suffice it to say, nobody who knows what they're talking about has ever claimed that Welles was working without any precedent in a medium that was at the time almost fifty years old. Welles was not an experimental filmmaker like Maya Deren, Kenneth Anger or Stan Brakhage; he was a Hollywood director working within the classical Hollywood style, and the film's innovations in non-linear narrative or visual style fall firmly within Hollywood conventions (albeit with some European influences in terms of its use of space in deep focus). Why don't you investigate, historically speaking, just ''how'' Citizen Kane took on the status that has in movie history? It certainly didn't take it instantly (notice that it didn't crack the 1952 Sight and Sound Poll). Orson Welles did not invent cinema, and even though he was making his first first film, some of his collaborators were very experienced -- his cinematographer Gregg Toland had been working since the silent era, for example. ''Film/CitizenKane's'' canonical status is comparable to that of Hamlet; Shakespeare did not invent drama and was most certainly working in an established tradition on the Elizabethan stage. But both works are supposed to represent the full maturity of the form, and granted upon it a certain respectability. That means a certain kind of innovation, yes, but innovation within an established tradition. Note that I am not contended that the film is indeed the greatest film of all time, a subjective judgment that has more to do with hierarchies of legitimacy than the film's intrinsic worth. If anything, Kane is done a kind of disservice by the baggage of ''greatness!'' attached to it; in the same way that a high school student encountering Shakespeare for the first time has to get past "you must love this!" mentality, so too do students in first year film classes automatically start out hostile to Citizen Kane as a reflex posture, and it usually takes several viewings to enjoy.
*** It's a common misconception that artistic quality has to do with being innovative. An artist can invent a technique or even a form, but then not exploit it to its full potential; if being innovative were the sole guarantee of genius, then the greatest opera ever written would be Jacopo Peri's ''Dafne'', because it was the first one ever written. But apart from the fact that we don't have a score of it anymore, it would be ridiculous to claim that it ''must'' have been better than, say, Mozart's ''Magic Flute'', which was written nearly 200 years later. Deep focus wasn't invented for ''Citizen Kane'' but it can be argued that Welles used it more creatively and intelligently than anyone before him, namely to tell you something about the characters in the film, not just to make a cool-looking shot. If you're not convinced, consider Music/JohannSebastianBach, who was not innovative at all. Bach didn't invent fugue, or oratorio, or the church cantata, or the keyboard suite, or the violin sonata. If great artists are great because they're innovative, then Bach is the most overrated composer of all time. But you can only make an argument like that if you've been forced into it by accepting a fundamentally wrong premise, namely that all great art is innovative.
*** This is a sidebar, but anyone claiming that ''Franchise/StarWars'', of all films, is without precedent is really and truly talking out of some bodily orifice other than their mouth. For whatever new it might bring to the table in terms of special effects, it is a ''pastiche'' of older science fiction, western, samurai and war movies, and contains specific visual citations of films like ''Film/TheSearchers'', 12 O'Clock High and so on (see Will Brooker's book on the film for a useful rundown). Not only is it not wholly original, it foregrounds its influences in a way typical of films of the New Hollywood (or the "Film Brat" generation).
** Great. lets start with the one just up here. Of course that the ''Franchise/StarWars'' example doesn't work because on the cinematography aspect, just like Citizen Kane, it borrows the techniques from pre-existing movies, yet no one calls CK out for that. That is why i used it to drive my point. Now on the other gentleman over there. See this?: "Serious film critics will concede that the plot of Kane is actually pretty simple, and that its genius lies not in what it is about but how it was done....." That is from the Trope of "What do You Mean, It's Not Didactic?" in the Film section, is very large and i am not going to copy ALL of it, just enough for you to know where to look. So as you can see, it isn't a straw argument, it from this very website (and keep in mind that i am ASKING about how this straw argument EXIST). It continues saying that it was on HOW the movie was told what made it unique, but again, if that was already done before then why is this movie so lauded for that? just because you do ONE original thing doesn't award you for the Best X Ever, isn't it?
*** This website should not be treated as the sine qua non of film scholarship, and for more nuanced takes on Welles's reputation and that of Citizen Kane I would recommend books by James Naremore, Paul Heyer, Laura Mulvey, Jonathan Rosenbaum and others. Suffice it to say, its reputation as "the best film ever" does not rest on any one thing but on a complex combination of aesthetic, industrial and cultural factors as related to cinema's need to promote itself as a legitimate artform as anything else.
*** I second the recommendation of Naremore and wish he'd do a commentary track for ''Citizen Kane''.
*** Was really Hollywood THAT desperate to be taken seriously that they have to pick up this one? Kinda curious since videogames are in the same slot of "not being taken seriously as an art form". So there is a chance that we may actually live to see a game being chosen arbitrarily as "The Citizen Kane". Then again, it seems that i cant get any more information here, so i mas as well search for those books.
*** To be clear -- the anointment of Citizen Kane was not done by Hollywood. It was done by the critics, first in France, and Hollywood only fell in line retroactively (Welles would complain that Hollywood studios loved to get him to speak at screenings of Kane, but not fund any of his new projects). It could be that the Citizen Kane of video games is already out there, but nobody will call it that for years to come.
*** Au contraire. There are about four "Citizen Kanes of gaming" a year. It doesn't take a whole lot for that claim to get thrown out there.
*** [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDbb6OOSh7o There's already a Citizen Kane of gaming, we call it Dynasty Warriors]]

** Because Mrs. Kane would have corroborated Gettys's claims.
*** You mean the fact that he DIDNT tell her about this "actress" he found when "looking" for talent?? he could have said that its part of his job and didnt need to tell her every detail
*** Anyone with half a brain could see through that (PS: use punctuation, because your posts border on incomprehensible).
*** Maybe its because i am thinking ahead of its time, but you think that a man who build his empire around being a honest man for the people would manipulate the media, to KEEP that image to remain strong enough to the point that even thinking about this man doing something this vile may be inconceivable, would have a better control of this situation. Then again, the relationship with her wife was kinda distant before having the kid (makes me wonder how they even agreed to have one kid with a dying relation but maybe they had it already at that point)
*** My apologies, but this has a bit of a FanWank feel to it. Why didn't he say he was "looking for talent" secretly behind his wife's back? He's not a talent scout, that's why, and would have no reason to begin moonlighting as one in the middle of political campaign. When a married man secretly spends time with a floozy, everybody knows the reason.
*** "When a married man secretly spends time with a floozy, everybody knows the reason" Everybody in the audience cant get their mind out of the gutter, cant they?? but you forgot that the film doesn't not imply sexual relations with the lady and its left to the imagination until the extortion scene. If we consider the things that the movie shows us, then what i can interpret about the scene that Kane spent with the lady is that he found out that she is similar to him, he sees her like a version of him that couldn't achieve his dreams because she didn't have the resources to do so. She then talked about her mother in such a way that Kane associates her respect for her mother with HIS mother. Sure, he as a child may not have realized how wise was the decision of her mother at first, but now as an adult he can comprehend that she did the best she could in this situation, so when he heard from the lady that HER mother wanted her to sing, he tough that she was doing the same thing for her daughter like his mother to him and the fact that she didn't went trough it was because she didn't fell confident in herself like her mother was. So because Kane still was kind of noble up to that moment but still in the brink of becoming an asshole, he helped her with the intention of knowing if getting decadent and ignoring your dreams is inevitable for anyone with power. So he could regain strength in his quest when she manages to not become a bitch. At least, that was what i tough the filmmakers meant. But then it came the extortion scene and he doesn't do anything to prove his opponent wrong or at least have a touching moment with his wife to tell her the truth, that he found someone that resembles him and just like his mother gave him the chance for a better life he will do the same for this lady. In the end the wife wont believe him and this sent him into further depression. But what do we got in the actual movie?? he does nothing of that and gets manipulated into making a choice that will lose something no matter what just because some "evidence" that i assume is either bullshit or Kane was just for the sexual thing (making that encounter with the lady fell less special) And that is the problem, it felt TOO CHEAP. The opponent could have told the public that he was a rapist, pedo or baby eater and the public would believe him. If Kane had the power over the media that the movie wants us to believe, then he would have already bought almost all the newspapers to work for his orders and would have prevented the "evidence" from being used, after all, having the newspapers around the country isnt a bad idea when you need to spread the news for the voters to know that he exist as a candidate. Then again if people really trash your chances of getting elected from one day to another, just because the opponent just came up with something that makes Kane look bad, then it makes you wonder what is the point of having control over the media if he didn't make any impact at all.
*** It seems to me like you're talking about two different things here (it also seems to me that you're writing a different movie). One: did Kane have sympathetic motivations for becoming attached to Susan Alexander? Perhaps so; he is trapped in a loveless marriage and in a nostalgic mood, and perhaps he was not even sleeping with her (though my sense is certainly that he was, for the record, though of course no film of the period could say so as plainly as that. At very least, Kane thinks he's initially going to her apartment for sex. Hence his statement "What you need is to get your mind off [your toothache]" followed by him closing her apartment door -- a sequence that never fails to get a titter from an audience). But the truth of it does not matter. Two: Does he have control over how it will look to other people when the facts (his repeated, secretive visits to the apartment of "low woman" -- you may want to consider that this takes place in the 1910s when visiting a member of the opposite sex alone carried different connotations)? No. He does not have control over all the media (as Gettys notes "every paper except his" will carry the story of Kane's love nest with Alexander), and if his papers were to start churning out denials, that would only strengthen his opponent's hand -- especially when you consider that he will be facing a very public divorce from Emily at the same time (remember that "Are you coming, Charles?" "No. I'm staying here" bit? He is clearly selecting Susan as his new love over Emily). You may also want to consider that Kane makes his decision, standing by Alexander and continuing his campaign rather than giving in to blackmail and silently withdrawing his candidacy, in the heat of passion, fiery with anger about having his weaknesses found out and used against him by "a cheap, crooked grafter." Perhaps it is a bad decision; Gettys certainly thinks so. But it is entirely consistent with everything we know about Kane's character.
*** You may also wish to consider that the film does not really show us the late stages of Kane's gubernatorial campaign. Kane does indeed promise to "fight this thing" but were are not shown just how he tries to do it, just that it ends up failing. Could be his publicity engine tried any old thing to rescue his reputation, but nothing did.
*** And I suppose Gettys DID have some evidence such as witnesses or even covertly made photos (harder with the 1916 cameras than nowadays, but not impossible) - otherwise Kane would simply have sued the newspapers for libel and probably won the case. After all, Gettys had to somehow learn of Kane's visits to Susan in the first place.

*** The newsreel at the beginning goes out of its way to say Kane was loved by millions and hated by an equal number. The most similar modern tycoon to Charles Foster Kane was UsefulNotes/SteveJobs; think about all the recent biopics that have try to explain him, his life, his psyche and motivations.

*** The newsreel at the beginning goes out of his way to say Kane was loved by millions and hated by an equal number. The most similar modern tycoon to Charles Foster Kane was UsefulNotes/SteveJobs; think about all the recent biopics that have try to explain him, his life, his psyche and motivations.

<<|ItJustBugsMe|>>

*** This is a sidebar, but anyone claiming that ''Franchise/StarWars'', of all films, is without precedent is really and truly talking out of some bodily orifice other than their mouth. For whatever new it might bring to the table in terms of special effects, it is a ''pastiche'' of older science fiction, western, samurai and war movies, and contains specific visual citations of films like TheSearchers, 12 O'Clock High and so on (see Will Brooker's book on the film for a useful rundown). Not only is it not wholly original, it foregrounds its influences in a way typical of films of the New Hollywood (or the "Film Brat" generation).

*** I don't think he was hated by "everybody". The newsreel painted him as a LoveItOrHateIt figure, so apparently ''some'' of the public liked him.