History Headscratchers / CitizenKane

* 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?

** Another possibility involves some inference on the part of the butler and/or the staff; Charles Kane [UnstoppableRage|undergoes extreme destructive rage] after Susan Alexander leaves him, halted only by the rediscovery of the snow globe - saying for the first time (at least by the shown chronological order of the movie) "Rosebud". Presumably if his grief and guilt made him go a bit batty, then perhaps he kept on repeating "Rosebud" continually until he died - which means that the butler could infer what his final words were and Kane could still die alone.

** Another possibility involves some inference on the part of the butler and/or the staff; Charles Kane [[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnstoppableRage|undergoes extreme destructive rage]] after Susan Alexander leaves him, halted only by the rediscovery of the snow globe - saying for the first time (at least by the shown chronological order of the movie) "Rosebud". Presumably if his grief and guilt made him go a bit batty, then he could have kept on repeating "Rosebud" continually until he died - which means that the butler could infer what his final words were and Kane could still die alone.

**** The power of celebrity. Kane wasn't just a sucessful buisnessman, 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 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; 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.

***** 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). Did Kane have sympathetic motivations for becoming attached to Susan Alexander? Perhaps so; 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). But 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 was a different thing entirely)? No. He does not have control over all the media, and if his outlets 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, who has tacitly sided with Gettys, at the same time. 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 used against him. Perhaps it is a bad decision; Gettys certainly thinks so. But it is entirely consistent with everything we know about Kane's character.

** Recall that they weren't neccessarily trying to portray Kane as a man who wanted to be loved and were only interest in searching for the meaning of "Rosebud." The reporters believed a more recent feature of his death is perhaps more interesting then his relationship with his deceased son decades ago. If anything, Kane shows genuine affection for his son, but when Kane chooses to abandon Emily for Susan, it was probably clear that his egoist assertions were more important to him than his fatherhood. Note that when Emily and Susan bring up concern for the welfare of Kane's son, Kane cares more for the election and his image losing all human side of a story about his family relationships.

*** Isn't it obivious? Kane was completly full of himself. He built Xanadu as a monument to himself, and he didn't care if anybody told him it was impossible. Hell, just look at the fact he entirely ignored that his second wife was a horrible singer and made her perform, and subsequently embarrass herself, in front of thousands of people.

** Recall that they weren't neccessarily trying to portray Kane as a man who wanted to be loved. The reporters believed a more recent feature of his death is perhaps more interesting then his relationship with his deceased son decades ago. If anything, Kane shows genuine affection for his son, but when Kane chooses to abandon Emily for Susan, it was probably clear that assertions were more important to him than his fatherhood. Note that when Emily and Susan bring up concern for the welfare of Kane's son, Kane cares more for the election and his image.

*** Isn't it obivious? Kane was completly full of himself. He built Xanadu as a monument to himself, and he didn't care if anybody told him it was impossible. Hell, just look at the fact he entirely ignored that his second wife was a horrible singer and made her perform, and subsequently embarass herself, in front of thousands of people.

*** Also consider the real-life inspiration for Xanadu: Hearst's Castle, which ''really is'' fantastically enormous.