Correct. *The Third Man *was directed by Carol Reed, who also directed the wonderful The Fallen Idol.
But do see A Touch of Evil. One of the greats, and irrefutable proof that there was a time when Charlton Heston was really, really good.
I think ya missed a camp, those that have no clue who William Randolph Hearst was, a camp that grows larger with each generation.
It’s clear reading the Wiki article about Kane that it isn’t necessarily just about WRH, but given Hearst’s response it’s clear he thought it was.
Often when Kane is on PBS they’ll show an interesting hour giving some of the back story of the making of the film and the hell Wells had to go through to get the film made. The better version of that is the HBO film RKO 281, add The Cat’s Meow for an interesting hat-trick.
CMC fnord!
BTW About “Rosebud”, legend has it that it’s NOT a piece of childhood winter sports equipment,
My money is on Vidal having the real dirt.
The revelation of what “Rosebud” is, is not very important in the whole scheme of things. It’s not the big twist upon which hangs the tale, like, say, the reveal at the end of “The Sixth Sense.”
Rosebud is just a plot device that gives the reporter a purpose for searching out and listening to the various characters through whom we learn Kane’s life story. At the end of his life, while contemplating the snow globe, he is reminded of the childhood he left behind. Rosebud is a remnant of that childhood and he speaks the word as he dies.
Nobody in the movie learns what Rosebud was, but Welles wants us to know and so, to the soaring strains of Bernard Herrman’s fantastic score, we are shown.
Greatest American film ever made, in my opinion.
Even if, even today, no one can explain who heard Kane’s last word. 
At the end of the film Raymond, the butler, tells the reporter that he heard Kane say “Rosebud” twice. The other time being after Kane destroys Susan’s room. We see the nurse enter and cover him after he dies at the beginning of the film, so I always imagined that Raymond and the nurse were just outside the bedroom and heard Kane’s last word.
Interestingly, there is a pretty lavish, Xanadu-like mansion near Miami, called Vizcaya. I doubt it directly inspired Welles, but who knows?
It is definitely not on a hill, though it’s ringed by pretty dense everglade jungle, and would make a great setting for an old school whodunit.
Also worth mentioning is Ca' d'Zan - Wikipedia up the Gulf Coast and possibly an inspiration for the Welles idea, since it would have been around and since the Ringling name would have been nearly as famous as Hearst. Even if that is raw speculation on my part, it was at least in a movie (see wiki article).
Exactly.
I saw it again recently myself (not for the first time.) It’s a really fantastic movie, but not for the “mystery,” and not merely for the technical achievements. It’s fantastic because of its taught pacing, superb acting, and surprising depth. What struck me most was the movie’s texture, for lack of a better word: it’s tone and the way Kane’s life unfolds before the audience, as he changes from young media idealist to corrupt, deluded, lonely billionaire. It’s almost like a metaphor for America itself.
Bottom line: This is a very rich movie (in the sense that there’s a lot to savor and ponder.)
Nope. Not a huge Simpsons fan. Seen one maybe two episodes in my life.
I guess I fall into the “overrated” camp. I’ve seen it and liked it well enough, and it was certainly an impressive achievement for the young Orson W., but I’ve never thought it was the greatest American movie ever.
My speculation is that most of the Hearst stuff didn’t come from Welles. Welles was from the East Coast theatrical world - and he was a narcissist. He put in the parts of Kane’s life that came from Welles’ life.
Herman Mankiewicz was the Hollywood insider. He was the one that knew Hearst and his secrets and he was the source for most of the Hearst references. While Welles was self-obsessed, Mankiewicz was self-destructive. He was setting himself up as a target to a man whose power he knew.
But Welles’ ego outflanked Mankiewicz’ subconscious. Welles insisted on stepping into the limelight and taking as much credit as possible for Citizen Kane. So he became associated with the movie as the sole creator. And when Hearst went looking for a target for his anger he went after Welles instead of Mankiewicz.
Eledil’s Heir - can you elaborate?
Little Nemo - I think you’re exactly right. IIRC it was Mank or someone close to him who tipped Hearst off to the connection and started the infamous “Battle over Citizen Kane.”
Mankiewicz told Hearst all about the screenplay before the film was finished. It’s also pretty certain that Welles is most responsible for the screenplay. Herman was no Welles, nor was he even a good Mankiewicz.
As for Rosebud, the movie states in no uncertain terms that it is “only a piece of the puzzle.” It’s very evocative as a symbol, of course (Kane’s lost youth and happiness), but doesn’t explain him at all.
Raymond also clearly says he heard Kane’s last word. In addition, if you watch the scene where he dies, you realize you do not see the entire bedroom – just the door and the nurse. He could easily have been standing anywhere in half the room.
Hmmm . . . I’m speaking from memory here, but didn’t Welles insist that Mankiewicz be credited as the screenwriter because he wrote the lion’s share of the script?
Edit: And that’s not to downplay Welles’ part. Directing is the more important job, IMO.
Both were credited as screenwriter. Welles even shared the Oscar with Mankiewicz. Interestingly, it was, Welles’s only Oscar other than an honorary one. He was never nominated again.
Mankiewicz was a popular guy around Hollywood and that was probably why Kane won that Oscar.
Welles wrote the screenplays for most of the films he directed, including some very good ones. I seem to recall that the first scene where Kane appears was primarily written by Mankiewicz and was based on watching Welles.
Without taking anything away from Welles’s accomplishments, there are many other movies that I think are better made - directing, cinematography, screenplay, costume, etc. - and/or are simply more fun, enjoyable or impressive than Citizen Kane. Tastes differ, of course, but for me the list would include Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, The Wizard of Oz, It’s a Wonderful Life, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, True Lies, Terminator 2, Dark City, The Incredibles, and a few foreign films too.
BTW, Mank also passed along to Welles the rumor that Rosebud was Hearst’s nickname for his girlfriend’s snatch.
Sorry, typo.
With regards to the rest of your post: I’ll give you taste, “fun” factor, etc, but The Incredibles better screenplay and directing than Citizen Kane? To me personally that’s just . . . it’s just . . . :eek:.
To each his or her own. :: shrugs ::
Everyone will have their own opinions about the ‘best ever made’, but Kane has to rank up near the top of most lists. Kane was groundbreaking. Nobody made films like that at the time. Spectacular acting performances that still hold up. Well, at 26, convincingly plays a brash youngster turning into an increasingly lonely bitter old man. A lot of today’s movies don’t do aging nearly as well. The use of low camera angles, silhouette, smoke and shadow, the skewering of a powerful figure who was actively fighting to get picture shelved…
Still a visually stunning fiilm.
I first saw Citizen Kane in film class, and we had been assigned a lot of reading about the making of the movie and why it was significant. I can’t remember who in our readings made this point, but “Rosebud” arguably reveals more about Kane than just a longing for his innocent youth. It would have been natural enough for the dying man to call out for his long-lost mother, but he does not. His last word is the name of an object from his childhood. Did he think he’d be able to regain his former happiness through a material possession? Has his adult life been so unhappy because he focused more on worldly success than human relationships?
But as you say, the movie itself tells us that a man’s life can’t be summed up in one word. So even if one likes the above interpretation (and I personally do), it would be a mistake to conclude that this is all there is to Kane.