Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
daddysprimadonna

Citizen Kane

Recommended Posts

JonnyGeetar wrote:

>That said, my one (and only) issue with Kane is that it is stated repeatedly that Charles Foster Kane was alone when he died, so how did anyone hear him say "Rosebud"?

>

>(Poetic liscense, I 'spose)

The comment made was about in reference to friends or family, I always thought. You need to remember the attitude about servants with the very wealthy. If you don't notice them doing their job, they're good servants. Hum, Raymond (Paul Stewart) isn't a sentimental guy, is he? Well, it could be the way Kane treated him. But then, Raymond reference to Kane's final words sounded as if he been reading tabloids about the last moments as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote: }{quote}

> Maybe he should have said "Radio Flyer".

LOL!

 

Well, truth be known here Fred, I was always planning on THAT bein' MY last words!

 

Well, either that or somethin' like, "Schwinn Stingray", maybe!

 

(...we Boomers usually will have a lot more pleasant childhood memories to pick from than "poor" ol' Charlie Kane here did, ya know) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}I think the Rosebud issue was set up as cover, it really makes little sense even when it is revealed what Rosebud stands for. It is sort of like an abstract painting, it is there to allow people to see what they want.

Well, the lead reporter, Jerry Thompson (William Alland) does say at the end that "Rosebud was just a piece of the puzzle", and that "No man's life can be summed up in just one word".

 

But, that IS a good point you made, MM.

 

(...except of course IF those final words might happen to be, say, "Radio Flyer" and/or "Schwinn Stingray"...and THEN that COULD BE the exception to this, ya know!) ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}I think the Rosebud issue was set up as cover, it really makes little sense even when it is revealed what Rosebud stands for. It is sort of like an abstract painting, it is there to allow people to see what they want.

 

I disagree. Obviously, the film is long and complex, and it says a lot. But, I think "Rosebud," and the snow-globe, crystallize the meaning of the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> > {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}I think the Rosebud issue was set up as cover, it really makes little sense even when it is revealed what Rosebud stands for. It is sort of like an abstract painting, it is there to allow people to see what they want.

> I disagree. Obviously, the film is long and complex, and it says a lot. But, I think "Rosebud," and the snow-globe, crystallize the meaning of the film.

Well then VX, in that case, I'm now wondering what childhood trauma affected little Orson Welles and made him balloon up to that oversized physical speciment and hard to work with gent that HE would become as an adult?

 

Because, as you might know, there are more than a few theories around which state that if you really look at the character of Kane, it can be construed as much of a portrait of Welles' life as it was of Hearst's.

 

Interesting, huh?! Could "Citizen Kane" actually be somewhat of an unintentioned "autobiographical" story here?

 

 

"Inquirer"-ing (get it?! ;) ) minds want to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the rosebud and the childhood reasons why a rich man wasn't a very nice guy somewhat trite and very conventional. i.e. something I would expect from a studio head or uncreative producer as as way of humanizing Kane for general mass consumption.

 

Like life the film is long and complex but I don't really need some conventional psyche 101 type of reason to justify why Kane did what he did with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point here james, however, have you ever considered that the ending presents not only the "Psych 101" idea that a man's course in life can be irreversibly set by some childhood trauma which he's experienced, but ALSO that, with the smoke rising from the chimney as many of his worldly possessions(including Rosebud) are being burned, that that might represent the idea we are ALL just "dust in the wind", and no matter how many possessions one might attain over their lifetime, it's all for nought?

 

(...I think THAT'S the "message" I've always gotten from this film's ending, and much more than the "solution" as to the puzzle of Charles Foster Kane's life)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The childhood memory didn't try to justify or explain why he did what he did later in life. All it did was show him thinking back to his early happy years as a child, after decades of living a busy, difficult, and hectic lifetime as an adult. A lot of old sick people daydream about their happiest memories of childhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just caught the reference to the "Florida desert" in the News on the March piece that opens the movie and realized that Xanadu, including the mansion on the mountain and giant zoo, is supposed to be somewhere along our west coast. What a laugh! Did Welles and Mankiewicz ever visit here or do research before writing the script? I'm assuming that because of Hearst, they had to put their version of San Simeon someplace besides California, but a state only 70-90 miles wide and even less accross the panhandle would not cut it for an estate the size they envisioned.

 

For the record, we've had two days of nearly constant rain thats has my yard a swamp and, while the state has occasional periods of draught, nothing that can be mistaken for Death Valley. A mountain that high would be impossible anywhere in Florida naturally and I doubt even Disney could recreate one. This affluent overkill almost kills the realism of the rest of the film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you know...

 

As awesome as Citizen Kane is, I actually think Touch of Evil is better...Maybe it's because Kane suffers (from no fault of its own, quite the opposite in fact) from Casablanca Syndrome: it's been so aped, parodied, and quoted that the first time you see it, you feel a trifle as though you've seen it already.

 

Odd since it is so innovative, oh well.

 

ps- saw Mr. Arkadin for the first time the other day, had no idea what the hell was going on, but enjoyed it greatly...even though Welles does look a little like an evil mall Santa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I visited San Simeon in 1965, a few months before I saw Citizen Kane for the first time in a theater in New York, and I thought the place in the movie looked quite a lot like the real thing, including the hill.

 

I imagine they used the Florida location to help them if a lawsuit developed, since it had a "West Coast", and it was not a California location. Back in the old days, Florida promoted its sunshine and orange groves, not its rains and hurricanes. Also remember that in 1940 the vast majority of Americans had never heard of San Simeon or knew what it was or where it was.

 

I was amazed by all the unusual photography and other unique ideas that went into the film. Even the scene in the newsreel screening room was fantastic, with all that smoke and back-lighting.

 

The "hidden camera" scenes of old Kane in a wheelchair were fantastic, because there were fences and bushes in front of the camera, making the scenes rather crude, which is exactly how they would really look if shot with a portable newsreel camera.

 

Also, it's the only film that showed a lot of scratches on the "historical" footage such as the scenes with Roosevelt and Hitler, so they looked like real old newsreel footage. Nobody had ever bothered to scratch new film like that, to make it look like old newsreel film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason, I like LADY FROM SHANGHAI better than either CITIZEN KANE or TOUCH OF EVIL. I'm not foisting that opinion on anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love LADY FROM SHANGHAI.

 

How would you like to be on a long yacht cruize with that group of oddballs?

 

George Grimsby still creeps me out. Remind me never to go into a business deal with a guy like that, especially one that involves guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I couldn't believe that hair style either. It detracted from the acting and made Welles look less villainous. I think he shot himself in the foot with this which is dad because the movie was good.

 

The story about having yourself investigated was used in a *Manix* episode in the 60's with William Shatner playing the good outside/nasty secret inside role. I though of it watching this movie and was reminded that a good story line can be used in any genre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As John Lennon said in the song Ballad of John and Yoko; You don't take nothing with you but your soul,,, THINK!

 

Now that is a sound message and one I respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Lady from Shanghai too, I just think Evil is such a crackerack film: from the dizzying opening shot to Marlene Dietrich's delicious supporting role, to Mercedes McCambridge's sicko cameo, I think it is the ultimate film noir (maybe shares that distinction with Double Indemnity )

 

The Trial with Anthony Perkins is also really good, has the same mix of black comedy and thrills that Arkadin does

 

I've always wanted to see Chimes at Midnight/ Falstaff too, never made the time to do so.

 

One of Welles' unsung greatest triumps though is the radio version of Dracula he did with the Mercury group. (It's available on youtube.) It's a shame he never did a filmed version, 'cause he really nails the spirit and the best points of the novel and gives a nice twist to the ending- it's the best version of the oft-oft-oft told tale (although that's not saying too much when you compare it to the Coppola (ugh!) or Browning (zzzz) versions- but really, it rocks.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}I find the rosebud and the childhood reasons why a rich man wasn't a very nice guy somewhat trite and very conventional. i.e. something I would expect from a studio head or uncreative producer as as way of humanizing Kane for general mass consumption.

>

> Like life the film is long and complex but I don't really need some conventional psyche 101 type of reason to justify why Kane did what he did with.

 

I don't think my (like many others) interpretation of "Rosebud," and the snow-globe justify Kane's behavior, or even humanize him all that much. The point is that for all his wealth and power, he had no happiness whatsoever. His life was as empty as Xanadu was cold and cavernous. He missed the happiness of his childhood. The obvious implication is that what he had done with his life was unsatisfying and misguided, therefore wrong, and supremely unjustified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote}I like Lady from Shanghai too, I just think Evil is such a crackerack film: from the dizzying opening shot to Marlene Dietrich's delicious supporting role, to Mercedes McCambridge's sicko cameo, I think it is the ultimate film noir (maybe shares that distinction with Double Indemnity )

 

 

I quite agree. *Touch of Evil* is Welles' best work, an excellent noir, and perhaps the best American film. Years ago I had the good fortune to meet both Welles' scholar Jonathan Rosenbaum, and Welles' last cinematographer, Gary Graver. I ventured the opinion (I thought heretical) that *ToE* was Welles' best film. They were like, 'well, duh!' like everyone knows that. To me *Kane* is a tour-de-force, and *ToE* is a kick in the gut.

 

I also like *The Lady from Shanghai*, but to me it is sort of a B picture, with no aspirations beyond entertainment. But, it is excellent entertainment, with many Welles flourishes.

 

Edited by: ValentineXavier on Aug 13, 2011 9:34 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Years ago I had the good fortune to meet both Welles' scholar Jonathan Rosenbaum, and Welles' last cinematographer, Gary Grabber.

 

You should've asked him his name, then: it's Gary Graver, not "Grabber."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite right. I should have looked it up, I was afraid I had it wrong. It's not like I claimed I was his buddy. Thanks for the correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your take on the 'point' and I just find this point very conventional and one dimentional. The rich man that 'has it all' that really has nothing. This story had been around for 1,000 years before Kane.

 

This is why I like Touch of Evil more. Quinlan had his faults but he was a much more complex man. To me Citzen Kane would of been a better movie if Kane was a more complex character instead of just another movie around a rich man that is really just a poor man at the end of the day. Again that is a very conventional theme.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>To me Citzen Kane would of been a better movie if Kane was a more complex character instead of just another movie around a rich man that is really just a poor man at the end of the day.

 

The reason that Citizen Kane is a "classic" has nothing to do with the basic story of a rude selfish rich man. It's a classic because of its unusual style, its unusual photography, editing, scene transitions, etc. This is why it is shown in film school.

 

For example, the lap dissolves in the scene with Joseph Cotten in the old-folks home were very unusual. I've never seen any done like that before.

 

The scene of Cotten talking dissolves into a flashback scene with Kane, and half-way through the dissolve, we see Cotton on the left side of the screen and the Kane flashback on the right side, and that is held for several seconds. It is a dissolve into a split screen by means of very clever lighting. The lights fade out on the right side of the Cotten scene, and they fade up on the right side of the Kane scene.

 

That technique had never been done before, and I've seen it in only one or two movies made after that.

 

I still can't tell if the scene was done with sliding graduated neutral-density filters or by actually fading down and up the lights. It's an amazing and unusual type of dissolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you 100% Fred. My only point has been that while the movie is ahead of its time and unique in so many ways I just find the Rosebud childhood part convensional and not a reason the film is one of the all time greats.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I agree with you 100% Fred. My only point has been that while the movie is ahead of its time and unique in so many ways I just find the Rosebud childhood part convensional and not a reason the film is one of the all time greats.

 

I think you are right about that.

 

But the Rosebud thing, to me, was a very unusual technique, used all through the film, and the very ending was just, to me, a very powerful realization. It was a simple idea but it really worked on me. And, to me, it had much more meaning than a simple memory of his childhood. A second meaning was about the reporters trying to make something important out of it, when it wasn't important at all, and a lot of old people experience the same thing, thoughts of their childhood when life was much more simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

*Dorothy Comingore's voice grates on my ears.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...