Nevertheless, I will wrought this analysis try to unravel what makes the movie to what it has become, and discuss whether it is actually the best film. Citizen Kane is basically about the life of newspaper giant Charles Foster Kane (played by the director himself, Arson Wells). The film opens with his death, and his last word “Rosebud” turns out to be very significant stuffed for further action. The reporter Jerry Thompson (William Land) is assigned to find out what this word really meant, and proceed with the investigation. He starts by reading through Mr.. Thatcher’s personal memoir about Cane’s childhood and further districts.
There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
We are told that he lived with his family in great poverty, until a large gold mine is discovered on the family estate. Little Charles was forced to leave his family to Mr.. Thatcher where he would learn to live in a more sophisticated world. When he turns 25, he takes over its own finances. It is also evident that here he buys the newspaper Inquirer. Moreover, he speaks with Mr.. Bernstein (Everett Sloane) that tells our protagonist in a more personal tone. Bernstein had worked closely with Charles Kane personally, and tells how he worked in his paper, and how he dealt with the press ethics.
The next person that makes a statement is Jadeite Leland Joseph Cotton), who also worked closely with the late giant. We are here to know more about Cane’s private life, about marriage to Emily Monroe Norton Kane (Ruth Warwick), the president’s niece, about how he met Susan Alexander and their relationship. Kane also goes into politics and there are indications that he is governor of New York, before he is blackmailed by its biggest competitor, Jim Getty’s (Ray Collins). He threatens to go to the media with the relationship with Susan, if not Kane withdraw from the election. Kane still choose to continue, and marriage with Emily goes under.
The reporter goes on to Susan Alexander Kane and get her version of the story. She talks specifically about marriage, about how he built an opera Just for her, and how they became more and more disgusted. Finally she goes from him, making Kane out of his mind. Finally, we talk with the butler Jack Morton), which tell of his last word, Rosebud. The reporter concludes that this word is Just a missing piece of a larger puzzle of the man Charles Foster Kane. Finally, we see that the assets of the giant is burned, and the sled with the inscription Rosebud is raised into flames before it all goes up in smoke.
Part of what makes Citizen Kane so special as it is and as innovative as it was, the dramaturgy. Here we get a glimpse into a person’s life, Just as seen through the eyes of others, placed on layer by layer. The projection of the film shows Charles Foster Cane’s death. He sits in a chair, says the word “Rosebud” and drops a snow globe onto the floor as crushed. Furthermore, a news item, in the introduction of Kane, acting as a kind of summary of the film, before it really started. Jerry Thompson is time to find out more about this mysterious person, and who or what Rosebud really was.
First we get to see Mr.. Thatcher’s version of Kane. This is very superficial and not very personal. Moreover, we get Mr.. Bernstein more personal impression. It tells what it was like to work with him, and how he was creative and used cunning to build up. Leland says more about how Kane was private, their marriages and political career. An important story here, when Leland was writing the review of the opera Susan Alexander Kane plays the lead role in, and Charles Kane have produced. Charles will happen to read the beginning of the article, where the opera outright slaughtered.
Instead of changing this, type Kane even finished the review, where he continues criticism. Leland describes it as the Kane always wanted to prove something. We will see more of later. Susan talks about what it was like to be married to the giant. We go more and more into the person and finally ends with his death. The story is told that is not chronological as it builds up the story, layer by layer. We can happily say that there are five different stories that together create a story. This compares with, for example detective genre, we learn more and more about the story gradually, until we finally sit with the conclusion.
The film is also designed so that the viewing angle is initially not shown by the main harasser himself, but through other people around him. This is done in many movies afterwards. For example Goodbye Banana (2007, Bible August), where the story of Nelson Mandela told through his Jailer. Yet there are some flaws in this structure. There are several examples where we know more than the narrator could know. For example, we learn quite detailed how cool his marriage to Emily was, and how Susan Kane met randomly on the street, even though Leland (who here says) was not present.
It is possible that he got it told, but in that case it will seem a little fake, considering where it is described. In addition, it is naturally Rosebud. Report Thompson never found out who or what it was, and concludes by saying that it sure is the missing piece of a big puzzle. It leaves the camera people and we get to see the sled being raised into flames. So we get a conclusion and an answer to the main question, as none of the characters get. Why choose Arson Wells to do it this way? Perhaps to satisfy audiences summer or to break with the style that has gone through the whole movie?
Had we not gotten to know the answer, we would probably all wondered and annoyed us over this. The film would not have to be the same. It is not easy to place the film into a dramaturgy model. We find a three in the film, where we have an estimate, an introduction, in which Charles Kane dies. Then we have the main part of the story and interviews with people, until we have an ending where the reporter concludes her, and the audience gets to know the answer to what Rosebud is. Finally, you see a sign reading “Private – No Trespassing”, and the world goes up in smoke. The film has several freemen.
The most important is probably how Charles always remember their childhood. After he moved to Thatcher, he gets a sled for Christmas. It is clear that he is not particularly happy with the gift, and this works so hat reference to the conclusion and the message of the film. The film was made in 1941, adding “present” at this present time. World War II started in Europe, but the U. S. Is still outside, so this does not have a major impact on the film (only mentioned Europe). The story goes back to the sass, where Charles was born. This is in rural Colorado – the apparent poor areas.
Moreover, we move pretty quickly in time and reappear in the early sass. We’re here in New York, in a sort of upper middle class. From here we move to something bouncing pace towards 1920. The phrase “the happy twenty years” is well represented here. American capitalism is in full recovery, which Kane enjoys. Idealization of the exotic was also evident in the ass’s, which also appears here in opera performance. This is also a testament to how important the entertainment industry was at this time. 1930 is marked by the stock market crash and recession, but this has not great influence on history.
During this period based Cane’s Canada and toys Kabuki Khan. We have moved us to the very top of the capitalist system, and Charles Kane sits like a king in the upper upper class. The film contains many characters, but it’s really only two people who are important to the lot: Charles Foster Kane himself and Susan Alexander Kane. In addition, the other “tellers” his mark on history, but this is primarily through their observations – not as characters, (with a small exception of Jadeite Leland who write the review of the opera to Susan). So who was Charles Foster Kane? The film is all about Just that question.
We find him first home in Colorado with his family. It is clear that he is happy in this life. He’s playing in the snow and the sled’s. When he must leave his parents he understands why, and being naturally enough, sorry for that. Maybe he interpreted it as a lack of love from parents. Why he had to go, and how the relationship between him and his parents were, is something that can be discussed long. There were problems within the family? The mother may seem somewhat cynical about the fact that her son will be traveling, and states that she has had bags packed for a week.
But this can also say something about how she is trying to distance itself from this reality. She makes much of the fact that his son must go she seems to icy Thatcher and her father. Charlie’s father, however, one might interpret in a different way. He is the first against the son will be going, but once Thatcher mentions money, he concludes that it is probably for the best. Nevertheless, it is important here is how Charles experience it. For throughout the film is the one thing that stands in his head: to be loved. Whether as a newspaper editor, business man, husband or prince.
And maybe it’s Just because of the lack of an apparent love of his parents that he is so. Something else that was important to Charles Kane was he, according to Leland, always wanted to try to prove something. He would show the world that he could. That’s why he started with the papers and that was why he would enter politics. He made up his “Deceleration of Principles,” which he would try to keep, even if it went beyond his own wife. He wanted to prove that Susan could be a great singer, because he believed in her. He built an opera for her, and gave her singing lessons.
Finally started the attention he got to take over. He wanted to prove himself as Kabuki Khan and built his own Canada. The only link he finally had the happy childhood was Rosebud. Susan Alexander Kane was Charlie’s second wife, and perhaps changed him the most. He fell in love with her – unless there was some thought behind it. She was his sanctuary, and even if there was a physical affair with hem, there was still something about this woman that made him different. After his first marriage was over, they got married. She was his singer and was in a way his repeated and parodied in films later.
For example, it is not difficult to see the similarities actress Liana Lament are in Singing in the Rain (1952, Stanley Done and Gene Kelly). Something that makes Citizen Kane sits down in movie history as one of the best is the use of cinematic devices. The film is in black / white is quite obviously because the technology had not come far enough to give something special colors. There had been examples of color films including Gone With The Wind (1939, Victor Fleming), but this was still only at the experimental level. Yet it is precisely lighting is one of the best remembered from this movie.
It is clear that German expressionism have been an inspiration. The point here was to use lighting and cinematography to create an artistic sense of the atmosphere. The image should carry the story as much as the subject. Wells was one of several that were bringing the genre into the American film industry. Citizen Kane uses this technique clearly in several places, especially in the estimate. The movie opens with a distinctly gloomy mood. The camera moves across the lattice fence that blocks the castle inside. The whole image is filled with shadows and light, and there are big contrasts. The fog is spread over the ground.
We see an ultra-close view of Cane’s lips saying “Rosebud”. Snow globe falls out of his hand, and we see that his nurse come in the door, through the shattered glass ball. The perspective distortion. This whole scene is a typical example of how the German expressionism influenced the film. Another means that the film afterwards has become known for, is how it Jumps in time. In some places you can jump in the same sentence many years into the future. For example, get a sled of Charles Thatcher for Christmas, and responds by saying “Merry Christmas ” and in the next scene continues Thatcher, many years later, and a happy new year. Another example is when Kane runs his newspaper and compared with the Chronicles. Mr.. Bernstein says it is no wonder that it is so good for this newspaper, when you see who’s working for them. The image shows a photograph of ten men working for Chronicles. The next moment the same men sitting in the room to Kane and Inquirer. This is six years later. We can find many examples of symbolism used in the film. See for example the opera performance to Susan. The music becomes wilder and wilder, mowing faster and faster, and finally extinguished the lamp scene.
The next moment is Susan in bed, totally broken and exhausted. The spark extinguished. In addition, frequent use of the image perspectives. Charles is emerging as a great personality when the camera is lowered to ground level (or below ground level in some cases to fit the camera in the studio). Another obvious symbol that is repeated on several occasions puzzle. Thompson explains Rosebud as the missing piece in a gig puzzle about Charles Foster Kane. “l do not think any word Explains a man’s life. No – I guess Rosebud is Just a piece in a Jigsaw puzzle – a missing piece. Susan Alexander Kane engages their time in Canada Palace solve Just puzzles. The dramatically structure can also be compared to a puzzle, where you have all the pieces in the right place to get the great whole. So we Rosebud, then. David Thompson, Arson Wells author, once said that Rosebud is the greatest mystery in the history of film. For what is it really? We are at the end of the movie know that it’s sledge to Kane, but what does this really him? Charles has lived a life where he has gone from the poorest conditions, to the highest peaks in finance and status ladder. Just the complement him.
The small of sentimentality that is left after a long and arduous struggle, the last piece of the puzzle. Rosebud is perhaps the most human in him, that would not get so much headwaters. There are not many flaws in this movie, but there are a few you may wonder. As mentioned chooses Wells to walk away from the people and show the audience what Rosebud really was the end of the movie. Another strangeness is that everyone talks about Cane’s last word, even if t actually was someone else present when he said them. He will snow globe that is broken, and only then will the caregiver.
Butler says towards the end of the film that he heard him say the word, but he was not present during the actual event. So what is the message of Citizen Kane? The film has enough many messages. It is a critique of the capitalist system, in which particular newspaper king William R. Hearst will undergo. But it is also a film about morality and how to live a good life. Charles Foster Kane experienced a life that few have done, and the message is therefore perhaps you may not be happy even if you are rich. For even if he got everything he wanted, so he ended up sad and lonely in a huge palace.
The friends had left him, both marriages had gone crunchy. All he really wanted was to be loved. And the only link he had true love was a sled with inscription Rosebud. Citizen Kane emerged in the early ‘ass – a decade of war. The film had clear references to capitalist greats, especially William R. Hearst. He even tried to get the film stopped, since the similarities were too striking. He could not, and the film was shown. There was no huge success when it came out, but in retrospect it has been standing as the world’s pop film. Genre-wise it has had a major influence on later films.
It was the link between the German expressionism and film noir that came later. Many directors have chosen to follow in his footsteps, watching as many similarities, genres, in Hitchcock films. I could write much more about this film, but decide to round off here. Is this the best film? Well, that’s a question that could not be answered, since it will only be my subjective opinion of it. Personally, I think this film has such incredible huge range, which makes it definitely will be nailed into film history for a Eng time, but wonder if there is Just too much of everything that it can be called the world’s best.
Again this is a review based on what one emphasizes in a film, and one can wonder if it will be necessary to interpret the film in many rounds to actually see the whole action. I’ve seen the film twice, and believe that it gets better and better, but probably would not have called the world’s best. But that does not mean that I have some replacement. Citizen Kane is a great puzzle, as many have tried and many will try to solve, without getting any answer. Maybe you never will manage to see the big picture.