I think the quote that my friend made about this movie sums it up pretty much: it is a modern day work of literature. I agree with him precisely on that point. I do not give it a 10 because at places it is slow and dull, but one does not appreciate the brilliance that is this movie until after one has sat down and thought about it. Citizen Kane is not a movie is simply watch, it is one to think about and mull over the ideas that come through it. Another friend stated that it was the most boring piece of crap that he has ever seen, and though that might be his opinion, I feel that he missed the entire point of this movie.

Citizen Kane is about a man named Charles Foster Kane who is a US newspaper magnate. I will not delve into the plot because that is not the purpose of the movie. Rather it is a character study on Kane and it is also a tragedy for we see how Kane's life not only slowly disintegrates to its inevitable conclusion, but also we see how his life ended up as it is.

There has been a lot of discussion over the precise meaning of Rosebud, the word that he mutters on his deathbed. At the end of the movie we discover that Rosebud is the name of his sleigh, and we see this as it is thrown into the fire. A journalist spends the entire movie trying to find out the meaning of Rosebud, but he fails to do so, walking out of Kane's manor, Xanadu, behind a huge amount of possessions packed away in boxes. We learn that the answer to the Rosebud question is an insignificant item amongst all of these meaningless possessions.

What does Rosebud mean? It may be the name of the sleigh, but what does it really mean. I guess to answer that question we must look at what Kane had, and what he did not have. At the beginning of the movie we are told all about Kane, or what the media knew of it, but as we follow the journalist we slowly come to learn more about the more intimate and personal period's of Kane's life. We are allowed into Kane's personal space and into his mind to try and understand how he thinks, and by doing that we are given clues as to why he mentioned Rosebud.

Charles Foster Kane was incredibly rich, having almost everything that he could want. Xanadu, his palace in which he died, was a tribute to his wealth. The palace was not finished, but that only says something minor about his character which I will not address. What I wish to draw out of that is that Xanadu represents his wealth and his ability to claim whatever possession that he wants. I use the word possession because there are three things in the movie that his money cannot buy: the presidency, love, and his childhood. The presidency is a minor thing, and love becomes more important after his first divorce. It is important because he uses his money to make his second wife famous, but one thing that this does not do is make her truly love him. He dies in bed a lonely man.

I believe that the major thing that Charles Foster Kane could not buy was his childhood, and we see evidence of this throughout the film, and tied together at the end where we see his sleigh, Rosebud, burning in the fire. His actions and his attitudes all show signs of a little boy trapped in the body of a man, trapped since the days he was sent off to boarding school.

The first instance is when Kane's mother decides to send Charles Foster Kane away. His father is against this, but his mother is adamant that Kane has a good education. When Kane learns of this his first reaction is to lash out at Thatcher, his trustee, with his sleigh. For the rest of his life he hated Thatcher with a passion. He refused to listen to him, and made his job incredibly difficult. Even though he was sent to the best schools, he reacted violently against them and was never able to last long. In the end he purchases a Newspaper because it seems like a good idea.

He hated Thatcher because Thatcher was the man that stole Kane's childhood. When Kane came of age he was able to dissolve the trust, and as such remove Thatcher from his life. He reaction to the schools is his hatred of having his childhood stolen from him, and the newspaper was him trying to reclaim the childhood that he had lost. In the end he is too old to live out a childhood, but tries to anyway.

The final thing that I wish to discuss is the reaction by Randolf Hurst against this film. It is a reaction that I really do not understand because I do not see Kane as an unflattering character. My friend described Kane as being a real and a repulsive character. I did not find him that repulsive, rather rash and unthinking. He actions which lost him the presidency was not due to any immorality, but rather due to lies fostered by his opponents. The divorce of his first wife is never explored, and it is doubtful that it was because of this because she knew the truth. Maybe it is because she did not really love him, but because she loved the fact that one day he might be president.

Any art becomes harder to appreciate as time passes. We look at statues and paintings from, lets say the Ancient Greece, and we appreciate them for their aesthetic, their style and the craftsmanship that went into making them. Yet we often know very little about why or even how they were made. Were they political in their time, like art often is nowadays, or were they made simply to feed the artist, like some of the greatest works of art in history have sometimes been made? And if we somehow found out that a painting of a human figure in some prehistoric cave was actually a political satire of the rival clan chief, would it add value to the work?

I ponder this because I don't think I fully get Citizen Kane, or if I even can get it without a degree in history. Back in its days, the film was widely applauded for its groundbreaking style and its cinematographic feats. Orson Welles put himself on the map by pulling off tricks and visuals that had never been seen before. He also based the story of one Charles Foster Kane on a real life business tycoon William Randolph Hearst, a polarizing figure back then, thus tying the film to the days of its release.

And I view this film and I must admit that it didn't blow me away. The cinematography is brilliant and impressive, but I've seen most of the tricks already in newer films, and thus their impact is lessened. And while it's an interesting character study about the meaning of contentment, wealth and American ideals, I was left with the impression that I was missing something. And I think it's that I have no real life parallels to compare this film to. Especially seeing as I'm not an American.

Is it still a good film? Oh, definitely. It's a pioneer of its field, its themes are very deep, it's beautiful on the technical level and even the story, while rather slow, does keep you interested through the capturing presence of Welles' acting. I do recommend seeing it, though I must admit that I respect it more than I like it.

The problem with writing about a film like Citizen Kane is that with 809 previous comments on the boards here, there is little that hasn't been said already. The best you can do is not look at any others and express your own thoughts your own way.

I've always felt the real reason that William Randolph Hearst so bitterly resented Orson Welles's masterpiece is that it got really too close to his own soul for him to be easy. Most folks who talk about Citizen Kane go for the obvious target, Welles's depiction of Marion Davies (Susan Alexander) as a no talent gold digger. In fact Welles himself in later years said he thought he was unfair to Davies then in Dorothy Comingore's performance.

What Welles showed in Charles Foster Kane was the insincerity of his beliefs. The key line in Citizen Kane I've always thought was what Joseph Cotten said that his friend Charlie Kane had a lot of opinions, but didn't believe any of them. To this day serious biographers of Hearst still wonder exactly what he did believe when the day was done.

Citizen Kane came up with a host of Oscar nominations, but only took home one award for original screenplay for Welles and Herman Mankiewicz. Original it certainly was in concept and execution.

The role that was written by Welles and Mankiewicz and directed by Welles for Welles is one of the greatest roles ever written for any film actor. The technique of Citizen Kane is always discussed, the flashbacks told from many points of view for the audience to get a grasp of what the title character was all about. What's not discussed is Welles himself.

What he does in fact is give several performances of the same man in one film. Welles reinterprets Kane five or six times depending on whose flashback we're seeing. He's a scared child being taken from his parents, he's a rich frat boy and incorrigible scamp as seen by George Couloris the J.P. Morgan like banker, he's an idealist and crusader as seen by his business manager Everette Sloane, a man with no core set of beliefs who will do anything to bend the public to approval by his closest and maybe his only real friend Joseph Cotten, a lonely man with a compulsion for real love by Dorothy Comingore, and as an aging tyrant by butler Paul Stewart. Welles makes every one of these Kanes come alive and each relates to the other.

The names of all those I've mentioned in the cast before were from Welles's Mercury Theater Company, nearly all went on to substantial movie careers. Others from the cast who did are Ray Collins, Agnes Moorehead, Ruth Warrick, and Erskine Sanford. I don't think any other film comes close to introducing so many talented players to the screen.

The film begins with the aged Kane's death and that single word 'Rosebud' which sends everyone scrambling to find out just what he had on his mind in his final moments on earth. Those searching never do find out, but you the audience does and the unveiling of Charles Foster Kane's inner soul is something once seen and never forgotten.