A cynical, slightly silly old man sits in a nursing home,
begging a reporter for a cigar. He is, as a long-time friend remarks, suffering
from old age, “the only disease you don’t look forward to being cured of.” And
in the middle of answering the reporter’s questions about events in the now
distant past, this elderly veteran of New York’s 19th century
newspaper wars says, almost offhand, “Of course, a lot of us check out without
having any special conviction about death, but we do know what we believe in.
We believe in something.”
The speaker is the ancient Jed Leland, and like many of his
fellow characters in “Citizen Kane,” Leland’s observation says a lot without saying
much of anything tangible. The underlying statement seems to be a recurring
theme in the film – the passage of time, and the humility it forces on us all. But
it also illustrates the multiple meanings that we as individuals perceive,
ascribe and sometimes force onto our lives and the lives of others. What do we
believe in, assuming we believe in anything at all?
“Citizen Kane” routinely makes it onto lists of the greatest
films ever made, and just as routinely sits at the top of most of them.
Entertainment Weekly was the latest this month, calling Orson Welles’ immortal
first movie the greatest motion picture ever. There are many reasons for this –
its use of cinematography, its rich backstory and the identification we as film
buffs feel in associating its title character with that of Welles, and his
contemporary inspiration, William Randolph Hearst. But I don’t wish to write
about “Citizen Kane” in those terms, since this has been done much more expertly
and much more extensively by people who can devote insight into Gregg Toland’s
images, or Bernard Herrmann’s score. Instead, I want to pay attention to the
story, strangely enough perhaps the least appreciated of all of “Citizen
Kane’s” many fascinating aspects. One might ask, even though there is no overtly
religious content, if “Kane” is the greatest Christian movie ever made. As I’ve
stated before, the absence of Christ from a work of art can also attest to His
presence in the world. What does the fictional life of Charles Foster Kane say
about Him?
Kane (Welles) is a newspaper tycoon, a man who owns an
empire of newsprint at the turn of the century in America, and parlays his
personal fortune into fame and power. He is a uniquely American success story –
his wealth built on a gold mine that providentially fell into his family’s lap.
And so Kane rises from poverty to the pinnacle, nearly parlaying his yellow
journalism into a political career. However, his affair with a singer (Dorothy
Comingore) hastens his downfall, and his megalomania results in him leaving
behind two wrecked marriages, his only heir dead, his life lasting long enough
to see most of his wealth and power stripped away, until he is almost totally
alone. His last, enigmatic word on his deathbed, “Rosebud,” sends a reporter,
Thompson (Wiliam Alland) on a quest to unlock its meaning. Though he doesn’t
learn what “Rosebud” was, we the audience do. But we are not fully sure what it
really means. There is a sense when viewing “Citizen Kane” that while we may
understand the story in part, like a single human life, there is something that
we are missing which keeps drawing us back. We feel that just because a
particular life, a particular story, has been recognized in part, that does not
mean that it has been fully understood. The film is, as Jorge Luis Borges
declared, “a metaphysical detective story.”
‘Who do men say that
I am?’
We know that when Welles first began casting about for
stories to film, one of his first ideas was adapting Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of
Darkness,” but with a twist – the camera would be the narrator, and we would
view everything from the perspective of Marlow, whose face we might never see.
“Kane,” though, is this concept in reverse – we view the life of Kane but not
over his shoulder. Instead, we view it through the lives of friends, business
associates, and those who perhaps knew him best. The question of “Rosebud”
gives us a mystery, and a window into the man. These “witnesses” to Kane’s rise
and fall are his guardian Walter Thatcher (George Colouris), his business associate
Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane), his friend Jed Leland (Joseph Cotten), his
second wife Susan Alexander, and his butler (Paul Stewart). But because Welles
allows each different witness to tell the story in part, we see different
facets of Kane. He’s the same man, of course, but we understand him in a more
fully-formed way.
Take Thatcher for example. When he first encounters Kane,
his charge is a boy, unaware that his mother has signed him over to a bank, in
effect. From their first meeting, Thatcher sees Kane as a bad seed, and he is
made complicit in the boy’s flowering. As we continue with Thatcher’s story, we
see the old banker as perhaps feeling misunderstood, or even cheated by how the
boy turned out, yet Kane is unapologetic toward him. Because he is suddenly
wrenched from them, Kane is forever left as a boy straining to regain his
forgotten toys, left beneath the falling snow. He wants new buildings, new
passions, new objects of love and new worshippers. Later on, when Thatcher
confronts the young Kane in the newspaper office, we see Kane as a great figure
– full of wit, and willing to pick a fight. He perhaps cares about people and
his power enough to seem a responsible fellow, even as he picks a fight that he
hopes will develop into a war for the sake of his circulation numbers. We see
Thatcher shaking his head at a familiar argument he has probably had thousands
of times with this willful little boy, now fully grown and playing havoc with
the economy.
That makes us feel for Kane only a few minutes later when we
witness one of his humiliations. It is in 1929, when Kane is humbled by the
Depression, that he declares, in front of his old guardian, that if he hadn’t
been very rich he “might have been a really great man.” Thatcher seems
surprised that Kane doesn’t believe he already is, and genuinely interested in
knowing what Kane would rather have been. Kane’s answer, as might be expected,
is in a way affectionately poisonous to his old guardian. That animus is all
the two of them have ever known of each other.
Thompson next goes to Bernstein, who is the most loyal to
Kane of all the people the reporter interviews. For this reason, it is
Bernstein’s sequence that allows us to see Kane at his most favorable. Bernstein
is a money man, but he doesn’t see the mere accumulation of wealth as a great
accomplishment. Bernstein obviously sees Kane as a remarkable man whom he had
the pleasure of serving. Remember it is Bernstein who recounts the moment of
Kane’s Declaration of Principles, his version of the Shema , his one
commandment– I am the publisher, and you will be my people. There were things
about him unpleasant, but he did great things. Bernstein seems to be the only
character who feels comfortable enough with who he thinks Kane was. For him, the
inexplicable was a part of Kane’s character.
Leland’s entry into the story is necessary for two reasons –
to give insight into Kane’s marriages, and insight into how Kane treated his
friends. Leland is like Kane, in that he grew up in privilege, though his
family lost everything. And Leland is in his youth an idealist, which is what
draws him to his friend Charlie. Many years later in the nursing home, the old Leland
is still bitter about Charlie’s failure to live up to his best hopes. That is
why he begins the story of Kane’s fall.
But their relationship is a complicated one. For example,
why does Kane finish Jed’s scathing review of Susan’s operatic performance?
Because he still feels for his friend, and he wants to rekindle his friend’s
hero worship. Writing such a review would be true to their younger selves. But
if that’s the case, why does Kane then fire Jed even though it is he who
finishes the review? Because he has to – his own employee can’t show up his
wife. Kane tries to buy off Leland’s favor to no avail. Leland responds by
sending him back the Declaration of Principles, as worthless as the torn-up
check. What is the Declaration now? “An antique,” Kane declares, as he knows about
himself what Jed later says, that he never had a conviction except himself.
Susan’s story takes up half of Jed’s recollections, and her
piece dominates the final part of the movie. Her story, consequently, is the
most important in unlocking the mystery of who Kane is. Kane meets Susan on his
way to a warehouse to see relics from his past – the antiques from his mother.
He is alone on this personal “sentimental journey,” when he first encounters
his future second wife. Who is Kane? Well, she doesn’t know who he is – this
means she’s simple. He seems flabbergasted that she likes him, even though she
doesn’t know who he is. (Is Kane talking about the private man, or the public
one?) But it is telling that the first time we see the snow globe that inspired
Kane’s final word, it is in Susan’s apartment on their first meeting.
There have been intimations of a Freudian connection here,
that Susan in some ways reminds Kane of his mother. We know from Jed Leland that Kane knew
immediately what kind of woman she was – a less educated, presumably more
pliable mate. But he sees in her simplicity something he has been aching for,
and he begins making her over into what he wants. This brings up an interesting
question – does her innocence attract Kane and simultaneously make him want to
transform her into something like himself? Why does she have to be an opera
singer, and not just a singer? Because he’s Charles Foster Kane. How can his
wife be anything other than just as grandiose as he? Her greatness reflects
back on him. It is telling that later, when Kane frantically claps after her
first performance, he stops just at the moment when the spotlight finds him. In
the end, Susan too wants love on her own terms, just like him. That is what
drives her away.
‘Who is the real
Charles Foster Kane?’
Using the storytelling devices of montages, flashbacks and a
non-linear timeline, we assemble a rough sketch of who we think Charles Foster
Kane was. But one of the reasons the film continues to work 70 years after its
creation is that the film doesn’t really answer definitively that question. In
fact, we aren’t even sure whether Kane is a good man who goes bad, or a bad man
who only wanted to fool people into liking him. In the original trailer for the
film, Welles tells the audience that he doesn’t know what to tell them about
Kane. He is “a hero, and a scoundrel, a no-account and a swell guy, a great
lover, a great American citizen, and a dirty dog. It depends on who’s talking
about him.” He invites the audience to decide for themselves.
Or does he? Welles’ use of light, camera angles, deep focus
photography and long takes to depict action were identified by the critic André
Bazin as the most accurate way of depicting life. But these devices are not
neutral in telling the story. For example, when Welles puts his signature to
the Declaration of Principles, his face is shadowed. This gives us the
impression that his motives are not entirely pure. As stated before, when Kane
claps, by himself, for Susan, the spotlight finds him – revealing him, so to
speak, as more interested in his own glory. He will not be made a fool, he
later insists, as though he now sees himself exactly as such. We never really
see Thompson’s face, since he functions as the audience’s stand-in, but also
because his life, for the purposes of this inquiry, isn’t important. Some
faces, some lives, are without illumination. Some lives deserve explanation,
and some do not. Some lives explain themselves, and some beg for obfuscation. By
doing this, Welles tells the story, but he is also subtly indicating how we
should feel about Kane, even if we perceive him intellectually as something
else altogether. The complicated portrait that follows is more lifelike as a
result.
“Love is not the subject of ‘Citizen Kane,’” Welles said,
many years after the fact, a surprising statement for multiple viewers of the
film. It seems to us that the film, if it’s about anything at all, is about the
pursuit of love. It is possible Welles meant romantic love, which is certainly true. Kane doesn’t seem to burn
with romantic passion for his women as much as he burns with an unfulfilled
longing. Does he need his mommy? Kane does seem starved for mother love. His
father felt he needed “a good thrashing,” but his mother curiously decides to
show her devotion to him, to protect him, by sending him away.
The word “Rosebud” sounds feminine, but it is later revealed
to be the name of Kane’s childhood sled, left back in Colorado. So it is
revealed as a childish thing, a sentimental thing, but that endears him to us,
in that we realize how far away Kane possibly traveled from the thing he missed
most – the person he could have become if he had never left the security of
Mrs. Kane’s Boarding House. Welles said the “longing for the garden,” for the
untroubled past, was a common trait of humanity and civilization.
But that explanation of “Rosebud” doesn’t ultimately satisfy
us, because “Rosebud” seems to be so much more than just the name of a sled, or
a time of life. For example, what is “Rosebud” to Kane when he says it? Is it a
memory, or a plea, or question, or a statement? What if Kane had said, for
example, “Jesus,” on his deathbed. We might wonder at the context. Religious
affirmation? Profanity? Request for salvation? But by saying “Rosebud,” he
seems to be saying something more than just the name of a sled. Can “Rosebud”
explain the beginning of the picture and the end, with Kane an almost godlike
figure ruling over a rotting empire, deciding what is truth and what are lies,
who is celebrated and who is ignored? When
he tells Bernstein (and Thatcher) that he might have been a really great man,
he obviously isn’t talking about his wealth or power. He means greatness in a
moral sense, and this has eluded him.
‘He got everything he
ever wanted’
Jesus’ own statement about greatness – “Whoever would be great among you must be your servant.” (Matthew 20:26)
– indicates how things might have turned out for Kane. If he had meant his
principles, if he had been the figure in his campaign speech, then maybe he
would not be the hollowed, broken figure at the end of his life. We learn more
from the man who breaks him, Boss Jim Gettys (Ray Collins). There is nothing
personal about it; Gettys is merely interested in survival. He just wants to
destroy Kane before Kane destroys him. You can see a creeping admiration for
the publisher, even in his contempt, because he gives Kane an opportunity to
save himself. But Kane choses “the love of the voters” rather than the security
of his family, and he loses both. Gettys understands something else about Kane through
his decision to press on– his arrogance, as personified by his affair with
Susan. He knows that Kane will need “more than one lesson” to understand what
he is throwing away. Kane appeared to be a servant, but he is revealed as
something else – a man pursuing his own reflection in the crowds that cheer him
on. He believes he can tell them what to think.
Kane’s death at the beginning of the picture establishes a
pattern – of limited time. Thompson has a deadline to make in discovering the
meaning of “Rosebud.” He must talk to Kane’s associates, all of whom are old.
(Except for Thatcher, who is dead, and his memories are found among his
papers.) When Thompson sits with Leland, Leland tells him this young doctor of
his wants to “keep him alive.” Leland frustrates this by wanting cigars. He is “cursed”
with memory. He seems to regret Charlie dying alone, but it doesn’t keep him
from rendering merciless, bitter verdicts on his friend’s life, because time
has run out on them all. And there is perhaps the most poignant moment in the
film, which has nothing to do with the larger story - the speech by Mr.
Bernstein about memory:
“A fellow’d remember a
lot of things you wouldn’t think he’d remember. You take me. One day back in
1896 I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry, and as we pulled out, there
was another ferry pulling in, and on it, there was a girl waiting to get off. A
white dress, she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for
one second. She didn’t see me at all. But I’ll bet a month hasn’t gone by since
that I haven’t thought of that girl.”
It’s interesting that Bernstein’s version of “Rosebud” is
again a feminine image. But he is telling us about the problem of time, how it
runs out, and how the human heart holds onto moments that are inexplicable even
to itself. Happiness may only last a fleeting second, in a crowd, never to
return. It is delicately feminine in its makeup, but mercilessly masculine in
its advance. “Citizen Kane’s” use of time – jump cuts, montages, time lapses – all
underline the brutality and the fragility of time. We only get a little while
to do what we think is right, and not much more of an opportunity to make
things right.
At the picture’s end, one of the reporters standing among
Kane’s artifacts wonders what all of it is worth. “Millions,” Thompson says,
“if anybody wants it.” Left unspoken is that if no one wants it, it’s all
worthless. It is almost impossible to watch the film without remembering other
words of Jesus – “For whoever wants to
save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. What good will it be for
someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone
give in exchange for their soul?” (Matthew 16:25-26) This is the other
unspoken theme of the film, the idea of value and meaning. What will we give up
to get back our souls?
We begin by searching for the meaning of “Rosebud,” but the
real question being asked is what does Kane’s life mean, with all the striving,
bellicosity, anguish, perfidy, humiliation and celebration? We sense the
meaning is in the flames that consume his sled. Rosebud is junk to be discarded,
as the butler nearby casually smokes a cigarette, unaware of its meaning. The
music is like that of a horror picture. The moral is that the things most
important to us may be worthless to the rest of the world, or in the greater
scheme of life. The world often misses the point of our lives, as do we. The
missing piece in all the jigsaw puzzles is ourselves, to invest them with
meaning. But we ourselves search for meaning, because the picture the puzzle
forms is still incomplete. Thompson
doesn’t find the missing piece, but neither did Kane.
I remember the first time I saw “Citizen Kane.” Even already
coming to the picture knowing that “Rosebud” was the name of his sled, I walked
away from the screen with an incredibly hollow, nameless feeling, terrified of
what my life might become if I was too careless. It is fitting that Kane’s
cherished memento, stripped of value by his death, is consigned to flames. Kane
has lost his life, forfeited his soul, and all that is left behind is a vast
collection to be sold off or destroyed. Just a stack of jigsaw puzzles, and a
parade of mirrors stretching out into infinity.
Set Your Fields on Fire
The award-winning novel by William Thornton
Available now
Some of the coverage of "Set Your Fields on Fire"
You can order "Set Your Fields on Fire"for $14.99 through Amazon here.
It's also available on Kindle at $3.99 through Amazon here.
Read an interview I did with AL.com on the book here.
Here's my appearance on the Charisma Network's CPOP Podcast.
Here's an interview I did with The Anniston Star on the book.
Shattered Magazine wrote a story about the book here.
The Alabama Baptist wrote about the book here.
This piece appeared in the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal.
Here's the write-up from The Birmingham Times.
Read a story for Village Living here.
This story appeared in The Trussville Tribune and this video.
Read an interview I did with AL.com on the book here.
Here's my appearance on the Charisma Network's CPOP Podcast.
Here's an interview I did with The Anniston Star on the book.
Shattered Magazine wrote a story about the book here.
The Alabama Baptist wrote about the book here.
This piece appeared in the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal.
Here's the write-up from The Birmingham Times.
Read a story for Village Living here.
This story appeared in The Trussville Tribune and this video.
Here's my appearance on East Alabama Today.
Story and video from WBRC Fox6 here.
Here's the write-up in The Gadsden Times on the book.
Read a piece I wrote for WestBow Press about writing the book here.
A piece about some inspiring works for me.
Story and video from WBRC Fox6 here.
Here's the write-up in The Gadsden Times on the book.
Read a piece I wrote for WestBow Press about writing the book here.
A piece about some inspiring works for me.
This is another interview with the fleegan book blog here.
Read a piece I did for WestBow Press about writing the book here.Read another interview with the fleegan book blog here.
No comments:
Post a Comment