Film critic on Citizen Kane
My first response to the question of Rosebud at the beginning of the film was it is indeed a mystery to be revealed by the end the movie. Only I am left with one chair embroidered with Rosebud which I found out that it is Kane’s childhood snow sled instead after I read a critic.
Or if it follows the conventional logic of plot; a man’s last word could be a long-lost unrequited lover, a beloved pet that remains regret until the very last breath of Kane. Nevertheless, Citizen Kane could be distinguished from the ordinary of the mystery movie because of its cinematography, its editing, manipulation of sounds that was not conventional during its contemporary. Therefore, this fact is not very possible to be established.
Also, investigator Thompson made his assertion at the end of the movie that he did not believed that one word could explain everything. Kane had owned all man could have want, and lost them all. Rosebud maybe something that he want or something that he lose. Anyway, a single word would not be enough to explain a man’s life. He asserted that Rosebud could be just like a jigsaw puzzle-a missing piece. I do not agree with this simply because I believed Welle was trying to convey the message from different point of views and this was a point of view of an investigator.
Interestingly, Kane have mentioned the words twice in the movie; once was during his violent action wrecking everything in Susan’s room after she left, at one point he was momentarily absorbed looking on a glass ball and mentioned the word for the first time. One of the critic explained that the glass ball that resembled his memory of his childhood. They postulated that Kane regretted that he did not lead a simple life when he was a kid. In my opinion, Kane have success in life due to his persistency and charisma as a leader. On the other hand, he was an incorrigible man that never changes his principles at the other end. He had chosen Susan Alexander over his political life in the face of his opponent; he was working all odd to put ill-skilled Susan Alexander on stage. Those are the parody that reflected his mistakes in life in contrast with his witty remark in political campaign, his leadership in the company. He presumed that he never regretted any of these deeds. However, Susan, the woman that he was proud of rather than in love with, left him with his lonesome castle. This was the first time he regretted his deeds. It was too late and everything left with him seems ridiculously huge, meaningless and cold.
In short, I believe the auteur intention was to portray the life of the richest man in the world with an insight into his character, love, and death. The protagonist can be the richest man in the world but he could not as poor as old person that have never love.
posted 2005-03-03 13:25:24
