I would argue that "Rosebud" is only one of several premises in the film that fall short of defining Kane. Others include the newsreel, immediately following Kane's death, and Kane's own newspaper. As forms of media, they call attention to the limitations on what can be made public. "How much about an individual can become public knowledge?" is a question the film raises with regard to Kane. The difficulties with defining Kane are acknowledged frequently in the course of the film. Citizen Kane, however, is not wholly inexplicable. The film does, in fact, offer valid premises for defining Kane. Unlike "rosebud" and the media, however, these premises are not readily apparent. Indeed, they seem to be obscured behind the less valid premises.
The newsreel features several attempts to define Kane. In one shot, Thatcher alleges his former ward has always been "nothing less than a communist." In the next, a disgruntled man-in-the-street proclaims Kane to be a fascist. Both shots are clearly directed at Kane. Neither, however, boasts a sufficient premise to account for who he is. The allegation of communist negates the charge that Kane is a fascist and vice-versa. Together, these labels present Kane as a man of contradictions. Rather than shedding light on their target, they cause him to seem more complex and enigmatic.
The newsreel contains shots of Kane's myriad possessions. His vast wealth is employed as a means of explaining him. However, do the riches of Xanadu provide any real clues about the life of their owner? One could argue that the opposite, in fact, is true; that Kane, the man, is buried beneath his vast wealth. His life is obscured, rather than explicated, by the things he leaves behind. Support for this assertion comes from Kane's friend, Bernstein. The latter explains to Thompson that "it wasn't money [Kane] cared about." Kane's possessions, then, are purely superficial images. They matter nothing to the man encased behind them and, hence, reveal nothing of his essence.
Go To Page: 1 2
