Tara Monastesse ’25
Staff Writer
80 years ago, a bizarre event occurred in Hollywood: a major Hollywood studio gave complete creative freedom to Orson Welles, a young man directing his first feature film, allowing him complete dominion over nearly every aspect of its production. The brainchild of that freedom is Orson Welles’ 1941 American drama film, “Citizen Kane.”
In a landmark contract with RKO Pictures, one of the biggest film studios in the United States at the time, Welles received a 25 percent cut of the film’s profits in addition to full control over production. Welles would go on to receive an Academy Award nomination in 1942 for Best Actor for his role in the film as the titular character, Charles Foster Kane. Though 80 years have passed since the film’s release, “Citizen Kane” has managed to stay relevant in modern discussion for both its cinematic innovation and social commentary.
The film is a character study chronicling the rise and fall of Kane, a public figure who wedges himself into several industries — including politics, journalism and show business, to name a few — as he builds a grand empire of wealth and status. In order to craft a complete portrait of Kane after his death, reporter Jerry Thompson (William Alland) interviews figures from Kane’s past. Through these interviews, the audience navigates Kane’s checkered history and reputation. All the sources Thompson hears from have drastically different accounts of Kane, and their varying answers lead to an element of unreliability critical to the film’s presentation.
“‘Citizen Kane’ is a milestone in the history of cinema for good reason,” Professor of Fine Arts on the Alumnae Foundation Paul Staiti said. Describing “Citizen Kane” as a “big jolt to the system” of Hollywood movies released at the time, Staiti highlighted the story’s ambiguity as a crucial aspect of the film, stating, “With the collaboration of Herman Mankiewicz, Welles developed a radical screenplay … the biography of Kane is unreliable and knowledge is perpetually in doubt.”
In the film, Kane is the subject of constant international media attention. Whether praising his virtues or denouncing his moral decay, the nation’s public constantly speculates about Kane’s death and identity; when his affair with Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore), a rising opera singer, is made public, his budding political career finds its end. In one dramatic scene, Kane walks through the halls of his enormous estate and the viewer sees endless reflections of Kane in a set of mirrors. Just as infinite interpretations of Kane exist in the hearts of all who knew him, the true Kane lost somewhere in the middle.
“It makes you think what someone means in somebody else’s eyes,” Francesca Marie ’22, a film, media and theater major, said. “We are all different in somebody else’s story. We have nothing when we are born, and we leave having nothing. What matters are the impressions we leave on each other. Kane didn’t leave a great impression on most people.”
Welles made no secret of the fact that Kane’s character was meant to directly criticize several notorious public figures — most directly, newspaper tycoon and failed politician William Randolph Hearst. However, the film’s political commentary has outlived both Hearst and Welles, with modern reporters like Jeremy W. Peters from The New York Times and James Owen from the Columbia Daily Tribune drawing comparisons between Kane and figures such as former U.S. President Donald Trump or media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, respectively.
Emily Dickinson Professor of Film Studies Robin Blaetz said she first saw the film as a graduate student at New York University.
“It was a radical film for its time and continues to be interesting for its technical experimentation and the fact that it was directed by a 24-year-old at a turning point in film history,” Blaetz said. Over time, the film’s place in Blaetz’s film studies curriculum has evolved, with Blaetz seeking to go beyond what she described as, “unthinkingly perpetuating the canon.”
“Film professors have been teaching this film — and others in the canon, which is largely white and male — continuously, which has the effect of making people talk about it,” Blaetz continued. “While I still teach parts of it while discussing narration in film, the film that I show during that week is either ‘Mustang’ (2015), the first film of a young Turkish woman, Deniz Gamze Erguven, or Sally Potter’s ‘Orlando’ (1992).”
“Citizen Kane” has taken on a legacy as vast and multifaceted as that of its titular character. The story of its creation is itself a part of modern pop culture, with the 2020 film “Mank” chronicling the efforts of Herman J. Mankiewicz to co-write the screenplay for “Citizen Kane.” Just like “Citizen Kane,” “Mank” received a Best Actor nomination — unlike Welles, though, Gary Oldman received the award for his titular role. The story of “Citizen Kane” has survived the transition to the 21st century and will likely remain relevant as critics and political theorists alike continue to parse the tragic story of Charles Foster Kane and the philosophies embodied in his downfall.