Welles, Orson. "Citizen Kane Is Not about Louella Parsons' Boss." Friday 14 Feb, 1941: 9.

After the premier of Citizen Kane, reviews of the film and coverage of the premier were published in the journal Friday. Orson Welles was displeased with the misinterpretations the he felt had been published. This piece is Welles’ response to the initial publications. his first concern is with their portrayal of him as a pleasure-seeking man lacking adequate work ethic. He responds briefly to this that if this were the case he surely would have been fired, and that he has been doing his job for RKO. The majority of the piece is dedicated to correcting several assumptions that Friday had made about Citizen Kane. Welles had been quoted in Friday as saying that the picture was in fact about Louella Parsons’ boss, William Randolph Hearst. He calls this unfair to both Hearst and Kane. He then goes on to clarify the goal of the movie as something other than a portrayal of William Randolph Hearst. He describes Citizen Kane as a mans [Thompson] search of the significance of Kane’s final word. This search provides him with five perspectives about the man, provided by five people that knew him well. Most importantly, Welles states that “He is never judged with the objectivity of an author, and the point of the picture is not so much the solution of the problem as its presentation.”

This conclusion provided by Wells supports Carringer’s view that ‘Rosebud’ should not be viewed as an answer to a puzzle, but as the process by which we can answer a question. It applies directly to my thesis by relating ‘Rosebud’ to a MacGuffin, or a plot device used in film to motivate the characters or advances the story. The details of this device are of little or no importance separate from the plot. ‘Rosebud’ motivates Thompson to interview people who were close to Kane, and in doing so assembles the pieces necessary to paint the most accurate portrait of him. However, aside from it’s motivational force, ‘Rosebud’ does not hold much importance.