How does Citizen Kane represent perspective PDF

Preview

Summary

Download How does Citizen Kane represent perspective PDF

Description

2. How does Citizen Kane represent perspective? Citizen Kane is an American drama film by Orson Welles in 1941. The film expresses perspective in a very unique way, which is through the perspective of five people who were close to Charles Foster Kane. Each perspective represents a specific time frame within Kane’s life and patched up together to form the ‘true’ image of the man (McGinty 46). Perspective was also represented in terms of playing with the privileged omniscient perspective of spectators. One of the reasons why the film remains classic is that it’s narrative strategy, which the story is told in flashback memories through different voices influencing the true image of Kane beneath the ambiguous ending where only the spectators outside the film could predict (Fabe 81). This essay will discuss the omniscient perspective of spectators in the film, following by discussing how Kane was interpreted through different perspectives. The interviews of the five people were conducted by a reporter named Jerry Thompson. The reporter’s face was never clearly shown, and it could be believed that Orson Welles gave the audience a voice through Thompson. The reporter is simply a vehicle where the audience can bring themselves into the film to solve the mysteries, what is ‘Rosebud’ and who is Charles Foster Kane? In the film, Thompson never figure out the mystery of Kane’s last word and it seems like there is no conclusion for the film, but I believe that the closure of the film is completed where we as the audience unravel the mystery ourselves and dis-attach from Thompson to finally obtain our omniscient perspective. It is noteworthy that the narratives are doubtful where there was no solid proof that every word said by the narratives was true and valid without any personal emotions which was argued in Bingham’s article. The first stop was the visit to the safety deposit box of Walter Thatcher, a manuscript recording Kane’s early childhood. Kane’s parents traded him to Thatcher in exchange of a large amount of money and causing young Kane to be disappointed and hit Thatcher with his sleigh and pushes him on to the ground (“Citizen Kane” 22:35-50). It should be noticed that right after the incident, Kane’s father swings his arm towards Kane and told Thatcher “What the kid needs is a good thrashing.” (“Citizen Kane” 22:43-45) following by Kane’s mother saying, “That’s why he’s going to be brought up where you can’t get at him.” while protecting Kane in her arms. This particular scene was crucial as there is a

possibility of experiencing domestic violence from the father towards the family during Kane’s childhood. The second part of the manuscript is about the relationship between Thatcher and Kane in his twenties. Kane might be stubborn and acting like a Communist in Thatcher’s point of view as a businessman, on the other hand he is also presented as kind hearted, generous, and a man of justice where he invested on the Inquirers newspaper aiming to give the people their right to know the truth, rather than being exploited by rich businessmen and corrupted politicians (“Citizen Kane” 26:16-47). To conclude, Kane’s childhood experience may be the reason of his desire for love and sculptured his sense of justice where he wanted to protect the weak when he has the power and ability to do so. Through the interview with Mr. Bernstein, Thatcher found out more about Kane’s rise to prominence in the newspaper industry. Mr. Bernstein was with Kane from the beginning of his career. He opposed Thatcher’s opinion towards Kane and said that “It wasn’t money he wanted. Thatcher never did figure him out.” (“Citizen Kane” 32:17-27). Throughout Mr. Bernstein’s memory of Kane, Kane showed impatient where he called for Mr. Carter six times in a row when Carter was busy greeting Bernstein (“Citizen Kane” 34:51-35:01). He is also high-handed, which he used his power and authority as the publisher without considering Carter’s feeling by moving into Carter’s office without his consent (“Citizen Kane” 35:03-40). Carter’s facial expression was observable as he was pouting while arguing with Kane shows us that he was not happy with Kane ‘invading’ his private space. Overall, Bernstein was more of a bystander in his relationship with Leland and Kane. It is noteworthy that the most glowing view of Kane emerges in the narrative of the loyal Bernstein. Bernstein part gave us a glance of Kane’s success in his early days at the Inquirer, leaving us a strong impression of Kane, which Bernstein prefers to tell, that is the confident, humorous, and the charismatic Charles Kane. This is shown through the making of the Declaration of Principles and the scene where Kane took only six years to ‘collect’ the greatest newspapermen to work for him compared to the Chronicles that took 20 years (“Citizen Kane” 40:15-45). Bernstein always shows his respect towards Kane by addressing him “Mr. Kane” and refuses to have any confliction with Mr. Kane’s point of view. This is consistent with Hogue (24) where “Bernstein prefers to limit his view of Kane’s character to the wheeler-dealer energy and assertiveness of youthful Charlie Kane.”

As Kane’s best friend, Jedidiah Leland talks about Kane’s first marriage and the fall of the Inquirers. He first narrated Kane and Emily (Kane’s first wife) and the changes in their marriage especially the famous breakfast montage scene (“Citizen Kane” 51:5554:05) where Kane’s domineering personality towards his lover was first shown. Perhaps Leland’s narration of Kane was the most appropriate as he was the one that understand Kane the most (or he could be). Kane’s pursue and the main core of the whole film was revealed in Leland’s interview (“Citizen Kane” 54:12-29), where Leland said, “All he wanted out of life was love” and “That’s Charlie’s story. How he lost it.” In Leland’s perspective, Kane never admits that he was wrong, even when he was caught having an affair with Susan and was forced to withdraw from the election, he still said “I can fight this all alone” and “There’s only one person in the world to decide what I’ll do. And that’s me.” right after Susan said that he should think about his son (“Citizen Kane” 1:08:221:08:43). Kane only believes in himself, just like what Leland said during his interview with Thompson. “He was disappointed in the world. So he built his own, an absolute monarchy.” (“Citizen Kane” 1:24:18) This particular line also shows the real face of Xanadu. The great Xanadu built be Kane was not a product of love, but a cage for his despotism (where he could exercise absolute power on everything in a cruel and oppressive way). This contradicts with the greatness of the Xanadu between the exaggerated description in the beginning of the film. While Hogue (24) argues that Leland’s narrative was the most challenging example of limited reliability where he might consider himself as Kane’s most incisive critic that is based less on the moral decline of Kane, but failure to live a “successful” life that Leland could only fantasize upon.

Susan Alexander as Kane’s second wife represents a victim figure, first of toothache, then where she was forced to become a puppet of Kane’s, and lastly a victim of alcohol. In the final part of the film, Susan told Thompson that “Everything was his idea. Except my leaving him.” This could show that, Kane, because of his childhood where he was forced to leave his parents and live a life he didn’t choose, he wanted to help Susan pursue her singer dream so badly that this desire deteriorates into forcing her to become one (“Citizen Kane” 1:26:33). Kane was attempting to do what his mother did, by putting her in the hands of those who will “change her from citizen to exception, and from New World low culture to European high culture, and will do against her will.” (Bingham 62). While spectators may show empathy towards Susan, there was also a doubt on the reliability of her narration. Susan taking excessive sedative medication may not be a

mistake, it could have been she wanted to commit suicide but fail to do so (“Citizen Kane” 1:33:50-1:36:40). In fact, it could be predicted that she is facing mental health issues such as depression caused by overwhelming stresses. It is worth to remember that Susan never appeared happy since her first appearance. Will her mental health influence her recalls of thoughts and memories about Kane causing her accuses to be mainly negative? Even though she feels victimized by Kane’s obsession, she didn’t refuse entirely to participate and even become a singer in nightclubs after her separation with Kane. It is possible that Kane was satisfied and happy with his life. The seeds of doubt in her narration has been planted, which leads us to consider Susan’s accusation that Kane loved her because he wants her to love him back, which agrees with what Leland said, all Kane wanted was love. In this case, it is noticeable that both Leland and Susan provided negative narrations about Kane where they both have a high anticipation towards Kane and then deeply disappointed. Yes, Susan had no more connections with Kane, but she had built a case for the image of Kane and had her revenge.

The last person to be interviewed was the butler of Xanadu, Raymond who reveals a battered, aged man that is strange and has nothing left to love for. This part of narration contributes to the solving of the mystery, what is “Rosebud”. In fact, this is also the part where everything started to patch up and revealing the meaning of the film. When we know that Rosebud was the sleigh Kane had in his childhood, a number of possibilities arises. Rosebud represents Kane’s childhood, where he has not obtain wealth, fame, and power. It could be that Kane longed for a pure happiness and freedom just like how he played in the snow when he was little. Rosebud could be childhood, happiness, or even love, and the poor man at his death bed only he realised what he really wanted. At the conclusion of the film, we have a better understanding Kane’s personality and the main events in his life, but do we really understand Kane himself? It is clear that the image of Kane is patched up through the narrations of five other characters, but each of them has different desires and beliefs towards what they wanted Kane to be ( how Susan remembers Kane is different from how Bernstein remembers him). In conclusion, I believe that we are left as much in the dark just like Thompson the reporter. Even though we have figured out what Rosebud is, it is just a piece in the jigsaw puzzle, a missing one. We were nowhere near to confirm the objective truth and the audience are forced to create their own reading and interpretation of the film’s indeterminacies. (1811 words)

Works Cited Bingham, Dennis. “Citizen Kane and the Biopic”. Whose Lives Are They Anyway?: The Biopic as Contemporary Film Genre, by Dennis Bingham, Rutgers University Press, 2010, pp. 50-71.

Citizen Kane. Directed by Orson Welles, Mercury Productions, 1941.

Fabe, Marilyn. “Expressive Realism: Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane”. Closely Watched Films: An Introduction to the Art of Narrative Film Technique, by Marilyn Fabe, University of California Press, 2014, pp. 78-98.

Hogue, Peter. “The Friends of Kane”. Film Comment, vol. 27, no. 6, 1991, pp. 22-25.

McGinty, Sarah Myers. “Deconstructing: “Citizen Kane”.” The English Journal, vol. 76, no. 1, 1987, pp. 46-50....