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.

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.”

Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ed. "Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich." This Is Orson Welles. By Orson Welles, Peter Bogdanovich and Jonathan Rosenbaum. New York: Da Capo P, Incorporated, 1998. Guaymas Chapter.

 

This Guaymas Chapter of This is Orson Welles is composed of material from a three-hundred and twenty-two page interview that Peter Bogdanovich conducted with Orson Welles. The interview was then edited and supplemented with primary sources by editor Jonathan Rosenbaum. The interview touches on almost all of Welle’s works, however, I will focus on it’s implications about Citizen Kane. Interestingly, the interview begins by exploring the topic of Hearst’s intervention. Welles states that he felt more pressure from those intervening on behalf of Hearst than from Hearst himself. By this point, Welles is no longer denying that Kane is based on Hearst, but is instead defending that Susan was not at all a reflection of Marion Davies. Discussion then moves to the topic of Herman Mankiewicz. In this interview, Welles gives Mankiewicz complete credit (or responsibility) for the idea of ‘Rosebud.’ He also goes on to say that he is not at all fond of the idea, and that he in fact did all he could to provide disclaimers for the symbolism implied by Kane’s dying word. The rest of the interview addresses issues and ideas from films other than Citizen Kane.

This interview represents another major change in Orson Welles’ attitude towards ‘Rosebud.’ With the ideas he asserts in this interview, he not continues to show that he is dissatisfied with what the symbol 'Rosebud' represents, but also removes the blame of ‘Rosebud’s’ failure from himself and places it on Mankiewicz, even stating that he took efforts to reduce the effect that the symbol had. This concept of ‘Rosebud’ as a weakness to the film is in stark contrast to the views Welles expressed in sources such as his 1941 statement about the purpose of Citizen Kane (4). It is, however, very much in line with the criticisms that reviewers began to voice after the films release, such as in Joy Davidman's Citizen Kane (5). This source supports the idea put forth in my thesis that Welles explanation of ‘Rosebud’ is dependent on media pressures because it carries almost no significance of it’s own. Welles had also previously rejected the idea of 'Rosebud' while still taking responsibility for the idea, as in his 1960 interview for the CBC (6), but now he refuses to take responsibility for the idea he sees as a failure.

 

Kael, Pauline. "II. Raising Kane." The New Yorker 27 Feb. 1971: 44.

(The Kael essay was published in two parts, 3a. is the first half as published in the February 20th, 1971 issue of the New Yorker, and 3b. is the second half as published in the February 27th, 1971 issue. Therefore, the annotations for the two parts are the same because they explain a single source.)

 

In this almost book-length essay, Pauline Kael provides a comprehensive and incredibly detailed examination of the film Citizen Kane. She asserts the premise that the risky subject material and the genius of those involved in the filmmaking process lead to a film that is as successful and real today as it was on it’s opening night in 1941. Her glowing review begins by addressing the film techniques that separate Citizen Kane from other movies of it’s time. It then moves to discuss the affect that the William Randolph Hearst controversy had on the success of the movie, concluding that Hearst was quite unable to limit the value of the film. However, she does note that RKO’s delay in releasing the film made it seem to have questionable popularity, which effectively reduced the popularity of the film. The bulk of Kael’s essay is dedicated to exploring how script-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz fits into the making of Citizen Kane. Mankiewicz is ignored by most reviews of the film, (largely due to direct actions taken by Welles) but Kael provides convincing arguments that it is Mankiewicz who deserves credit for some of the genius we often give to Welles. Her portrayal of Welles is not always complimentary as she reveals her view that Mankiewicz was treated very unfairly by Welles and the film community as a whole. Finally, Kael goes on to explain many of the symbols and mysteries contained in Citizen Kane. It is impossible to describe all that Kael covers in Raising Kane because it is both deep and comprehensive, but these are a representative sample of the arguments she defends.

Most applicable to my thesis is Keal’s discussion of the meaning of ‘Rosebud’. Notably, she highlights Orson Welles own conflicts about what to make of the mysterious symbol. She cites a discussion Welles has with Mrs. Alexander in which, when asked about the meaning of ‘Rosebud,’ he responds by saying that “My dear Mrs. Alexander, I don’t know, I’m making it up as I go along.” This quote illustrates that, concerning ‘Rosebud,’ Welles had to go through the same search for meaning that audiences must still undertake today. Again, this sort of assertion created a need for Welles to explain that he did indeed have and know a purpose for the symbol 'Rosebud.'

 

 

 

 

Kael, Pauline. "I. Raising Kane." The New Yorker 20 Feb. 1971: 43.

(The Kael essay was published in two parts, 3a. is the first half as published in the February 20th, 1971 issue of the New Yorker, and 3b. is the second half as published in the February 27th, 1971 issue. Therefore, the annotations for the two parts are the same because they explain a single source.)

 

In this almost book-length essay, Pauline Kael provides a comprehensive and incredibly detailed examination of the film Citizen Kane. She asserts the premise that the risky subject material and the genius of those involved in the filmmaking process lead to a film that is as successful and real today as it was on it’s opening night in 1941. Her glowing review begins by addressing the film techniques that separate Citizen Kane from other movies of it’s time. It then moves to discuss the affect that the William Randolph Hearst controversy had on the success of the movie, concluding that Hearst was quite unable to limit the value of the film. However, she does note that RKO’s delay in releasing the film made it seem to have questionable popularity, which effectively reduced the popularity of the film. The bulk of Kael’s essay is dedicated to exploring how script-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz fits into the making of Citizen Kane. Mankiewicz is ignored by most reviews of the film, (largely due to direct actions taken by Welles) but Kael provides convincing arguments that it is Mankiewicz who deserves credit for some of the genius we often give to Welles. Her portrayal of Welles is not always complimentary as she reveals her view that Mankiewicz was treated very unfairly by Welles and the film community as a whole. Finally, Kael goes on to explain many of the symbols and mysteries contained in Citizen Kane. It is impossible to describe all that Kael covers in Raising Kane because it is both deep and comprehensive, but these are a representative sample of the arguments she defends.

Most applicable to my thesis is Keal’s discussion of the meaning of ‘Rosebud’. Notably, she highlights Orson Welles own conflicts about what to make of the mysterious symbol. She cites a discussion Welles has with Mrs. Alexander in which, when asked about the meaning of ‘Rosebud,’ he responds by saying that “My dear Mrs. Alexander, I don’t know, I’m making it up as I go along.” This quote illustrates that, concerning ‘Rosebud,’ Welles had to go through the same search for meaning that audiences must still undertake today. Again, this sort of assertion created a need for Welles to explain that he did indeed have and know a purpose for the symbol 'Rosebud.'

 

 

 

Crowther, Bosley. "The Ambiguous 'Citizen Kane'" The New York Times 4 May 1941: X5.

 

This Bosley Crowther review of Citizen Kane accomplishes in highlighting several aspects that contribute to or impede the success of the film. The publicity created by the films possible connection to William Randolph Hearst and his tactics of yellow journalism created an attitude in the public that helped the film succeed. Their dislike of Hearst’s yellow journalism techniques made viewers eager to cling to any attacks on his character, which could be inferred through the portrayal of Kane. While the film fails to conclude that Kane was indeed guilty of yellow journalism or any other amoral actions, the eagerness the audience had to find such connections fueled the success of the film. Also, Crowther praises the innovative film techniques employed by Welles and Toland to make the film a visual masterpiece. The filmmakers mastery of and excitement toward the art of cinema was an incredible contributor to Citizen Kane’s success.

While Crowther does concede that Citizen Kane is quite above average and an overall success, he raises an argument against the film as truly great one. He states that the lack of clarity that the ending brings to the mystery of ‘Rosebud’ makes the theme of the movie ambiguous and vague. As relates to my thesis, the piece provides support for the idea that the intended meaning of ‘Rosebud’ is quite unclear, even to film critics such as Crowther. It pushed me to explore the idea that it’s significance is merely misunderstood as opposed to altogether ambiguous as is asserted by Crowther in this piece. This kind of feedback also pressured Welles to respond with evidence that 'Rosebud' is in fact clear.

Welles, Orson. "Orson Welles on his Purpose in Making Citizen Kane." Citizen Welles: A Biography of Orson Welles. By Frank Brady. New York, NY: Scribner, 1989. 283-85.

In this statement originally released in 1941, Orson Welles responds to reviews such as Crowther’s and references like Kael’s that ‘Rosebud’ is an unclear symbol that Welles himself is unsure how to interpret. While he does briefly mention his inspiration for creating the character Charles Foster Kane which includes no indication of a reference to William Randolph Hearst, the bulk of his three page statement is a surprisingly straightforward treatment of the symbol ‘Rosebud.’ A brief excerpt is telling of this simplicity:

“The most basic of all my ideas was that of a search for the true significance of the man’s apparently meaningless dying words...From the view of the psychologist, my character had never made what is known as ‘transference’ from his mother...As it turns out,‘Rosebud’ is the trade name of a cheap little sled on which Kane was playing on the day he was taken away from his home and his mother. In his subconscious it represented the simplicity, the comfort, above all the lack of responsibility in his home, and also it stood for his mother’s love which Kane never lost.”

Welles goes on to state that it wouldn’t be dramatic to have a random character enter the film to explain all of this to the audience, so he instead needed to make the sled reappear at the conclusion of the movie. To do this, he made Kane a collector of objects so that the sled’s appearance would not “strain the credulity of the audience”.

In relation to my thesis, this piece represents the second concept that Welles has about ‘Rosebud.’ His initial comments that he himself was not sure of it’s significance were modified in response to the media’s negative response to the ambiguity of the symbol.

 

 

Jackson, Tony. "Writing, Orality, Cinema: The ‘Story’ of Citizen Kane." Narrative Vol. 16, No. 1 (January, 2008).

 

This piece by Tony Jackson asserts that the nature of a film is represented through it’s form on screen, so in order to find meaning in the film as a whole, one must examine it’s defining elements. In particular, Jackson emphasizes the use of the written word and the spoken word in Citizen Kane. He describes an underlying conflict in the film between the written word, represented by Kane’s newspaper empire, and the spoken word, as emphasized by the newsreel Rawlston and Thompson are creating. The entire film, in a sense, is Thompson’s quest to discover the meaning of ‘Rosebud’ so that the newsreel and spoken word can provide viewers with something that the written word of the newspaper cannot.

              Against the backdrop of this conflict, the fact that the actual speaking of the word ‘Rosebud’ is so emphasized indicates the weight that it carries in the film. Jackson examines several elements that help to define it, and the power of the spoken word, as important. First, the act of speaking is highlighted; the camera zooms incredibly close up on Kane’s lips as he mumbles the syllables of ‘Rosebud’. This accomplishes two things: it isolates the act of speaking from any of his other bodily actions; and it keeps other people and their response to Kane’s word out of the shot. In doing so, the audience is left with just the spoken word, with no visual aides to help them understand or interpret it. The physical speaking of the word becomes what is important. Second, the description of ‘Rosebud’ as Kane’s “dying words” gives it a power unique to spoken word. As this was dying, they retained only enough energy to control their speech, and with these words they summed up their life.

              In the context of my thesis, this article serves as a setting-off point. The orality of the depiction of ‘Rosebud’ makes it stand out against the backdrop of the world of the written word, and emphasizes it’s incredible importance in the film Citizen Kane. Yet, it is still not clear what exactly this orality is emphasizing. This article helps support the notion that the mystery of ‘Rosebud’ is an important one to explore.