Following the death of publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane, reporters scramble to uncover the meaning of his final utterance: ‘Rosebud.’

I have been putting off the writing of this post for the better part of three years. For three years, I’ve had my original viewing notes. For three years, I’ve had research notes scattered across a One Note page. For three years, I have had the outline for this article done. And yet, I haven’t written it. Is that partly because I know how large of an undertaking this article is for me, talking about both the technical advances and a character breakdown of Charles Foster Kane? Yes. Is that also because this would be the final film on the AFI Top 100 list, the list I aimed to complete when I first started this site? Absolutely.

I began this website when I was in my senior year of college, circa-2014. I was a film student at a small liberal arts college in north east Ohio. I had signed up to take more film genre and analysis courses when I realized that this was something that I could do on my own, just because I loved doing it so much. I decided to work my way, backwards, through the updated American Film Institute’s 100 Years…100 Movies list. Twelve years later, and I’ve found my way to number one.

When the topic of discussion is Citizen Kane, there are so many things that could be discussed. The film was revolutionary in so many of the techniques that are still used frequently today. The film features a story that stays so painfully relevant 85 years later, and that story begs to be torn apart and the main character dissected. Then there is the matter of opinion: does Citizen Kane belong in the number one spot? Does it even belong in the top 5?

Visually, Citizen Kane feels very modern. Often times, films from this era and genre can feel very static. Citizen Kane feels fluid, in comparison. This is helped by a number of elements, including the choice of Cinematographer. Cinematographer Greg Toland was eager to work with first-time director Orson Welles, as he anticipated that an inexperienced director would have some unheard of asks, and Toland was up for the challenge.

One of those unheard of asks was the extended use of deep focus, a technique using a large depth of field. Deep Focus wasn’t completely unused at the time. It was used in films such as Nosferatu (1922), All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), and Rebecca (1940). It was the extended use of this technique that was tricky. Keeping the foreground, middle ground, and background all in sharp focus while action and dialogue is occurring in all three proved to be no easy feat. Toland, however, was able to achieve this by playing around with lenses and lighting.

The influence this had on filmmakers moving forward cannot be understated. The scope of what they could do on screen had been widened.

Deep focus wasn’t the only visual aspect that puts Citizen Kane at the top of so many lists. The use of lighting, mirrors, and ultimately the visual language that the film developed are all aspects that contribute to this film being known as “the greatest of all time”. Citizen Kane truly is a story told through the camera. Lighting is used with great purpose throughout the film. Sometimes it is used to conceal people who aren’t particularly important, like in the Newsroom scene at the beginning of the film. All heads and discernible features are kept hidden because these men are not important. They are merely trying to piece together the story of Charles Foster Kane to present to the public. Lighting is often used in the film to further convey a character’s intentions or true feelings. If Kane is being dishonest, for example, it’s likely that he’s draped in shadow.

The frequent use of extremely low angle shots facing upward was seen as unconventional for the time. Throughout the film, the camera is placed nearly on the ground, jutting upwards, often times revealing a large, looming Kane which, of course, was the exact purpose of these shots: large, looming Charles Foster Kane.

Mirrors and reflections are used very intentionally throughout the film. At the end of the film, while Kane ambles down the hallway, he passes in front of a seemingly never ending wall of mirrors, reflecting in that moment all the different versions of Kane that he has been throughout his life. The mirror is used to show us that fractured life. Even the narrator of the film, the reporter writing the story on the man who was Charles Foster Kane can only grasp at bits and pieces from different sources to try and make a complete picture of a man’s life. Fragmented stories about a fragmented man.

The ending isn’t the only place that reflection is used to show the reality of a situation. Throughout the film there are moments like this.

These things are not only cinematic accomplishments. Each element helps to create the visual language of Citizen Kane.

Sound is used very purposefully in Citizen Kane. It is quiet at the beginning of the film, then a dissonant tone fades in, immediately setting a feeling of unease in the viewer. That feeling of unease comes and goes throughout the film, as sound, or silence rather, is used to convey that nervousness. During the opera scene, there is an emphasis on the lack of clapping before and during his wife Suzanne’s curtain call. Kane is clapping the loudest, as he has the most to lose from the situation. When Kane confronts Suzanne at Xanadu, Kane enters the room where his wife is doing a jigsaw puzzle. There are tremendous echoes. Their voices echo, the footsteps echo, the jigsaw puzzle pieces being thrown back on the table echo. Everything is emphasizing just how truly empty his home of Xanadu is, despite being filled with all his treasures.

The final moments of the film rely heavily on the use of sound. When Suzanne leaves Kane, just before he dies, he absolutely destroys his room. There is no music. There is only the sound of items being destroyed. The Foley work and sound editing during this scene is immaculate. Then the scene after Kane’s death, the echo in the room as all of Kane’s worldly possessions are being catalogued, there’s an emptiness behind that echo. Just like there’s an emptiness to the reporter’s story. Because there was an emptiness to Charles Kane’s life.

Citizen Kane is largely still relevant today due to the writing. Although screenplay credit went to both Orson Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz, Mankiewicz was the one largely responsible for the writing of Citizen Kane.(Kael, Pauline. “Chapter 13.” The Citizen Kane Book, Little Brown, Boston, MA, 1971, pp. 33-33) The dialogue is masterful, which is why so much of it still rings true to this day.

The film is filled with small moments that are perfectly written to emphasize the larger overall story. In the beginning, one of the men in the News Reel editing room says “But it needs an ending…” Because, to these men, this is just another story of another powerful person passing away. Juxtapose that with Charles Foster Kane and how important he views himself and his life. There are moments like this again and again throughout the film.

This story of a power-hungry media tycoon still rings true today.

The main character of Citizen Kane is a man named Charles Foster Kane. He’s a character crafted from several American media and business tycoons at the time like William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Pulitzer, Samuel Insull, and Harold McCormick. Sprinkle in a bit of Welles’s and Mankiewicz’s own lives and there you have Charles Foster Kane.

As a young boy, Kane’s mother calls on a man named Thatcher from the bank to establish a trust for her son, while also taking guardianship of the boy. You read that right: Charles Foster Kane was raised by the bank. He was raised by Capitalism. It is during this discussion between Kane’s parents and Thatcher that we see that first great deep focus shot. We see Charles in, ultimately, what he considers to be one of the last actual happy moments in his life. Everything links back to that sled.

His parents see this as an act of great love and giving their child a better life. Well, his mother, at least. It’s hinted that the father may abuse him, but she could be alluding to their son not falling into the same life as her husband, a life she is ashamed of.

When Charles Foster Kane comes of an age where he has a bit more control over his money, he is only interested in one thing: the newspaper The Enquirer. This interest and its motives are key to understanding Kane. He isn’t interested in the gold mines that he owns. He just wants The Enquirer. He knows how much influence those who own the media have. It is then revealed to Thatcher aka the bank that Kane wants the paper so he can expose the bank and their misdoings. This, at first, feels like the noble thing to do, but is quickly realized to be motivated by selfishness. This will only help Kane.

“If I hadn’t been really rich, I could have been a great man.”

Charles Foster Kane

Kane continues to walk the moral line while owning the newspaper. He repeatedly recognizes the power he holds over the American people. To put those around him at ease, Kane drafts and publishes his declaration to the people to remain unbiased and truthful. Following this, although technically regarding something else, Kane says “You don’t expect me to keep any of those promises, do you?” The last thing the audience has seen is the publication of the declaration, making a link between the two.

The dialogue and conversation around Kane becomes more about influence as the film goes on, both Kane being influenced and Kane doing the influencing. Jedidiah Leland voices his concern regarding Kane and influence to Kane’s business manager, Mr. Bernstein when the men from the rival newspaper are brought over to work at the Enquirer:

Influence is mentioned most often when referring to how influential Kane is himself. He has no qualms about using his newspaper to influence geopolitical events. Bernstein asks this question that perfectly displays how far Kane’s reach is:

“You take the Spanish-American war. I guess Mr. Leland was right. That was Mr. Kane’s war. We didn’t really have anything to fight about – But do you think if it hadn’t been for that war of Mr. Kane’s, that we’d have the Panama Canal?”

Even Kane himself acknowledges this during an exchange with his first wife Emily:

Emily: “People will think – “
Kane: “What I want them to think.”

Charles Foster Kane’s want and need for control consumes him. We begin to see Kane use his newspaper in questionable ways, not just hear about it secondhand. There’s a running narrative in The Enquirer that he is “Charles Foster Kane, friend of the working man”. The viewer knows how far from the truth that statement is. While Kane is running for office and married to his 1st wife, he has an affair with a 22 year old who is “a cross section of the American public”. While having this affair that is jeopardizing his run for office, Kane prints two newspaper covers: Kane Elected and Fraud at the Polls.

It’s his marriage to the 22 year old he had an affair with, Susan Alexander, that is the most telling when it comes to Kane’s character. He becomes obsessed with crafting Susan the perfect persona. She casually mentions early on that her mother wanted her to be a singer. From that moment on, Kane decided his 2nd wife would be an opera singer. He built her an opera house to give her a place to perform, despite the fact that she wasn’t interested in being a singer in the slightest. He has this ego driven need to prove he can do this. He can turn this middle American country bumpkin into a star. Like, if he does this, it somehow confirms his power, much like the Panama Canal did. In fact, the famous clapping scene during Susan’s bow, that’s not a clap for her. That is an applause for himself. He continues to control Susan with this singing career, using his money to build her said career so she feels indebted to him. This is his motivation, and that becomes clear with one comment Kane makes towards Susan: “You will continue with your singing, Susan. I don’t propose to have myself made to look ridiculous.” None of what he has done was ever about Susan. It was always about him. The saddest part is, even after Kane is out of her life, the singing career is her identity. She lost herself completely.

Susan, refreshingly, pushes back with Kane, often. These exchanges are eye opening when trying to understand the character of Charles Foster Kane. The only time Kane shows any kind of actual compassion for Susan is when she attempts suicide. Kane is briefly jolted in the right direction. This is short lived, however, as he soon resorts again to his money to fix things. He builds Susan a palace that she never asked for. She repeatedly brings up that, although he’s built the house of Xanadu and filled it with things, none of it is what Susan has ever wanted. With lines like “You just try to buy me into giving you something” and “You want me to love you” Susan makes it clear that her husbands idea of love has a monetary value. Kane thinks he can use his money, his influence, to make those around him love him. As the viewer finds out, however, this is far from the truth. His money and his influence drives away all who love him.

Kane must control the narrative of his life and all of those involved. As the film goes on, it’s clear that this is destroying him. In his final moments, as Susan leaves him, he destroys nearly everything in the room. He never learned how to properly cope and process his emotions. He’s destructive all the way through his life, even up to his last moments. And in those final moments, all that came to Charles Foster Kane’s mind was the last time he remembered being truly happy: playing outside his home on his sled named Rosebud. He utters that word and then is gone.

After his death, the camera does a final pan over Kane’s belongings that fill Xanadu as people sort through the items, showing the contents of the man’s life before finally zooming in on Rosebud. The sled is picked up and thrown in the fire with the other seemingly unimportant items. The most important thing in Kane’s life is thrown into the fire as mere junk. Black smoke rises towards the sky as Rosebud burns. The final shot is the same as the opening shot: No Trespassing. A life book-ended.

The biggest question I have had since watching and researching Citizen Kane is “Does it deserve the number 1 spot on the list of 100 Greatest Films over 100 Years?” When I watched this film for the first time 3 years ago, my answer would have been “No”. I felt that the film absolutely deserved to be in the top 5, but I was questioning it’s first place spot. I thought Vertigo was a better film, at the time. Now, three years and two re-watches later, and my opinion has changed. Citizen Kane ages almost too well regarding out current political climate and who’s running the show here in the states. There are so many lessons to be learned in this film through the character of Charles Foster Kane, but I fear that, the people who those lessons are for, they’ll never get it. Kane really is nothing more than an overgrown child who never learned that the world isn’t for him. Being raised by a bank will do that, I suppose. He never learned true empathy because corporations can’t teach that. They don’t know what empathy is. Kane grew up learning the power of words and manipulation and that carried him through his adult life.

As far as the writing and filmmaking goes, even 85 years later, the film feels modern. Herman J. Mankiewicz had his finger on the pulse of these tycoons. The way the story is structured is brilliant. The news reel at the start of the film gives the viewer a brief overview of what they’re about to watch and it’s all in the first 10 minutes. It hooks the viewer immediately. I am thankful Orson Welles was so ambitious as a young filmmaker and didn’t take no for an answer. Citizen Kane remains painfully relevant 85 years later and will continue to stay painfully relevant for 85 more. After a lot of deliberation, I can confidently say that I do think that this film deserves the number one spot on AFI’s 100 Greatest Films Over 100 Years.