The Citizen
Kane page (Nancy Simmons)
At
the bottom of this page are some questions to consider.
Here is one take on Citizen Kane; what does this suggest about its "cultural values"?
Citizen Kane (1941) Orson Welles's masterpiece is a narrative account, using the techniques of German expressionist film as transmuted through Hollywood film noir, of the life of the right-wing newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. Welles shows the New Deal liberal mentality in its most effective and attractive form: as a critique of bloated and irresponsible capitalism, but still fascinated by capitalist power (Norman F. Cantor, The American Century: Varieties of Culture in Modern Times (New York: HarperCollins1997), 521).
What's so great about Citizen Kane?
Reading selections
Letter from William Randolph Hearst, 1885, 1.5 pp.
* Orson Welles, "Citizen Kane Is Not about Louella Parsons' Boss," 1 p.
*Early reviews (8.5pp):
from
Newsweek,
Time,
The
Clipper (Belfrage),
New
York Times (Crowther)
**Joseph Natoli, from A Primer to Postmodernity, 2.5 pp.
**Roger Ebert on Citizen Kane [Note: Ebert gives away the ending; unless you've already seen Citizen Kane, don't read this piece until after seeing the film.]
Sarah Street, on Citizen Kane, from History Today [This is a good example of how a historian looks at this film.]
Two Hearst websites:
http://www.hearstcorp.com/ah8.html
http://www.zpub.com/sf/history/willh.html
Also recommended:
Robert L. Carringer, The Making of Citizen Kane. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: U California P, 1996. On reserve in Newman Library (PN 1997 C51173 C374 1996).
Pauline Kael, "Raising Kane." In The Citizen Kane Book . . . (Boston & Toronto: Little, Brown & Co., 1971): 3-84. On reserve in Newman Library (PN 1997 C5117).
Ronald Gottesman, ed. Focus on Citizen Kane. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971. A collection of essays, reviews, and other materials about the film, primarily from the perspective of film criticism. On reserve in Newman Library (PN 1997 C512). See especially the essays by Bernard Hermann (who wrote and directed the music for the film), pp. 69-72; and Gregg Toland (the cameraman), pp. 73-77.
Questions to consider:
1. Before seeing the film: If you were following the news in 1941, would Welles's piece ("Not about Louella Parsons' Boss") and the early reviews make you want to see the film? [Do they make you want to see it in 1998?] Why, or why not?
2. Assuming that the "media" reflects "cultural values," what sorts of "values" (about anything) do you find in the early reviews of Citizen Kane? What makes something worth discussing, knowing about, etc., in the culture served by Time, Newsweek, the New York Times, etc.? What did the debate about the film add to this?
3. What is Crowther's main negative criticism of the film? Which other critic(s) assigned for reading (consider all the assigned readings) share this criticism? How do some of the other critics deal with this problem?
4. After seeing Citizen Kane: Belfrage says the film indicts not the man but environmental, social and economic "factors." Do you agree? Why, or why not?
5. What are some of the positive criticisms offered by these writers? Have these changed over time or remained pretty much the same? What are some of the reasons Citizen Kane has continued to be judged the "best" or "greatest" film by many experts?
6. Welles says he's "met some publishers, but I know none of them well enough to make them possible as models" ("CK is not . . . ). However, his screenwriter did know W. R. Hearst well and had been invited to stay at Hearst's mansion at San Simeon in California. What about the right of the wealthy and famous to privacy? What does Welles and Mankiewicz's "use" of Hearst's life story suggest about the public's right to know vs. the individual's right to privacy in modern American society? (On Mankiewicz's role, see Kael, pp. 13-39, and Carringer, 16-35).
7. Other things to consider: