Citizen Kane

This is not a formal "review" of Citizen Kane, but instead a set of random (and probably highly debatable and misguided!) observations about this remarkable film.

 

I find that the reputation of the movie is so formidable that one feels an obligation to concentrate intently on the socio-political content and moral undertones, to the extent of over-analysing it and extracting a distorted or over-zealous interpretation. Also, an excessive focus on the perceived messages risks hindering a full appreciation of the film's technical excellence and innovation.

 

At the same time, it is easy to become caught up in the "Rosebud" "enigma", and forget the deeper things which Orson Welles et al were possibly trying to say.  "Rosebud" may have been intended as a bookend device, to hold the thing together. Yes, Kane in his dying breath appeared to lament the loss of childhood innocence and happiness, with the intrusion of wealth, power and adulthood. However, some other elements of the story are worthy of comment.

 

How significant is it, for example, that Kane was set on his way by his family suddenly coming into money, by a sudden extraneous intervention which was bound to disturb his equilibrium, and lead to an air of unreality and artificiality?  The gold mine which was discovered on the Kane family's land can perhaps be seen as a metaphor or dubious portent of sorts, a symbol of plenty and affluence which actually led to impoverishment of a non-material kind for one of the supposed beneficiaries?

 

Watching Citizen Kane, I mused on the nature and effects of "privilege", good fortune and windfalls. It is often (correctly) noted how such things often lead to a sense of injustice amongst the less fortunate, but it must be remembered that those on whom "fortune" is bestowed are often harmed or blighted in a different way. An inheritance or bequest can be a mixed blessing indeed...

 

 

 

Some of the "Orwellian" imagery is very potent, and was of course very in vogue in the early 1940s. Such aesthetics may not be particularly fashionable these days, but they would be just as apposite, as many of the themes which gave rise to that backdrop are as relevant and prevalent as ever; the depredations of the state and big business, whether separately or in concert. It strikes me that somebody should make a 21st-century equivalent of Citizen Kane. The raw material is plentiful, even if the age of reclusive and eccentric media moguls appears to have passed.

 

On the subject of media moguls, it occurs to me that we no longer have campaigning and crusading newspapers in the style of Kane's New York Daily Inquirer. True, a paper may occasionally get its teeth into an emotive and pressing issue, but this tends to be the exception rather than the rule. Even if the motives are occasionally questionable, such campaigns have the capacity to do good and challenge the existing orthodoxy, and make those in power uncomfortable. Those who undertake things for selfish reasons still sometimes leave some positives in their wake..

 

It can also be argued that the picture poses a question about wealth "for its own sake" and wealth as the gateway to power, as pursued by some of Kane's adversaries, and wealth as a means to an end, but what those "ends" are is left largely unresolved, and their promise unredeemed. Much of the "philanthropy" which we see is aimed primarily at making Kane loved by individuals close to him, or by the public at large. People who feel misunderstood simply become more defensive and insecure when attempts to ingratiate themselves are shunned.

 

During the newsreel segments at the start, we see the "Noah's Ark" analogy in Kane's zoo. What symbolism here I wonder?  More evidence of a siege mentality, or the conceit of a man who continued to believe that he was doing the world a favour by his activities?

 

With each viewing Citizen Kane becomes slightly less dazzling and awe-inspiring to me, but the more pessimistic and grim an impression of the human condition it leaves. This may simply reflect my own shifting attitudes. All the same, it is still a diverting and startling piece of cinema.