The word Rosebud is arguably one of the most famous words ever uttered on the big screen, yet it's significance in the film Citizen Kane, is much debated. While it is clear that Rosebud is a necessary piece of the puzzle that is Citizen Kane, almost seventy years after the films' debut, it is still unclear how it fits together. There are many common explanations for Kanes dying word, which range from Rosebud as an allusion to William Randolph Hearsts personal life, to Freudian explanations about Kanes attachment to his mother. None of these, however, supply the audience with the resolution that they crave. Therefore, in this bibliography I will examine a less intuitive idea put forth by Robert Carringer. This Bibliography tells a story which concludes with the thesis that Rosebud holds no meaning beyond itself. It is a MacGuffin; a mechanism used not to explain the man Charles Foster Kane, but to explore different perspectives about him. 'Rosebud' provides an association to the central symbol of the film (the snow globe, according to Carringer) which shows the audience a more accurate portrait of Kane. I begin by emphasizing that Rosebud is indeed a vital component of Citizen Kane, as is illustrated in an essay by Tony Jackson. I will also illustrate that is seems quite ambiguous to many viewers, including film critic Bosley Crowther. I then show that while Welles himself supplied contradictory explanations for Rosebud in response to media pressures, this inconsistency makes sense in the context of Carringers argument. If Rosebud is indeed a MacGuffin, then Welles would have no real explanation for it independent of the theme of the film. It would therefore be logical that in response to pressures he felt from the audience and the media, he would create meaning that would appease each specific complaint. In the opening of the movie, Rawston creates a premise that Rosebud will explain everything; that Kane is a simple man whose life can be summed in a single word. Thompson provides an opposing view, in which Rosebud is only one of the missing pieces to the portrait of Kane that he is trying to reassemble. In doing so, the film leaves open the question of whether or not Kane can actually be understood by the audience. Had he provided a consistent response for questions concerning Rosebud, Welles would have undermined this central conflict in Citizen Kane. By instead supplying varied responses, Welles leaves the question as an open one. Finally, I will provide additional support for Carringer's theory, taken directly from the words of Orson Welles, and from articles written by other authors. NOTE: This project is most clear if viewed in the order indicated by the numbers in the titles of the sources.

 

 

Carringer, Robert L. "Rosebud, Dead or Alive: Narrative and Symbolic Structure in Citizen Kane." PMLA Vol. 91, No. 2 (March, 1976): 185-93.             

    In this analysis of Citizen Kane, Robert Carringer opens with the idea that to assign any meaning to ‘Rosebud’ is to ‘reduce Kane’s life to a Freudian epigram.’ Furthermore, all attempts to explain the symbol away have ended in it being viewed as a cheap Hollywood gimmick. To Carringer, the confusion about the theme of Citizen Kane is created by the fact that everyone insists on including ‘Rosebud’ as a key component of it. Instead, Carringer asserts that ‘Rosebud’ is a MacGuffin with no thematic significance on it’s own, used to develop meaning beyond what it stands for. It is present to create an association with the central symbol of the film, which according to Carringer is the snow globe that shatters in the opening moments of the film. Because ‘Rosebud’ lacks meaning on it’s own, it makes sense that Welles did not provide consistent answers when asked about it’s significance. Instead, he would provide answers that smoothed over whatever criticism the reviewer was presenting. The inconsistency is added support for the idea of ‘Rosebud’ as a MacGuffin.

              ‘Rosebud’ is made to seem important because Rawlston suggests it as the premise of his newsreel, which the audience then interprets as a suggested premise for the film Citizen Kane. In Carringer’s opinion, however, the film revolves around the conflict between this premise, and the opposing one proposed by Thompson that a “word can explain a man's life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a piece in a jigsaw puzzle—a missing piece.” This conflict is the open question that Citizen Kane explores, and it seems to arrive at a conclusion more in line with Thompson’s idea. The importance that Rawlson places on ‘Rosebud’ creates a reason to interview multiple people and to explore Charles Foster Kane from so many perspectives.

              ‘Rosebud’ is the means by which we can reach the end conclusion about Kane. Carringer says, “The film set up Rosebud as the one to be pursued and noisily constructed a quasi-detection plot around it. But, quietly, all the stories functioned to fill in the meaning of the other clue. The little glass globe, not Rosebud, incorporates the film's essential insight into Kane. It is a crystallization of everything we learn about him-that he was a man continually driven to idealize his experiences as a means of insulating himself from human life.”