Modernism and Citizen Kane

Modernism, having primarily started in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (though the philosophies it was based in are widely regarded as having begun and ended between the 17th and 20th centuries), is a broadly nuanced and heavily reactionary movement. It can in some ways be seen as the result of the disenfranchisement with and dissolution of the Romanticist ideals for far more pragmatic and realistic beliefs. For example, the flowery and idealistic imagery and language of Byron and Shelley's poetry had fallen out of favour and a more functional, direct, matter-of-fact approach became the preferred direction for a great many, being pioneered by poets such as Ezra Pound and T.S. Elliot, whose production, together with other like-minded poets, of the imagist manifesto in 1912, established an entirely new era of straitforward, unobtuse poetry.

Of course to discuss modernism and where many of the ideals of modernism derive from it is necessary to look at some of the psychanalytical theories being presented at the time, chiefly by psychologists such as Sigmund Freud, who posited that all human endeavour is in some way linked to the self in primal, animalistic manners, so that the most complex and efforted works to the most simplistic, through to the completely convoluted and seemingly unlinked, could in some way be linked to primal, sexual desires and vies for dominance according to Freud. This can easily be seen as holding strength within the context of the time when you observe classical pieces such as The Rites of Spring by Stravinsky and Prokofiev's Dance of the Knights, both of which conjure up the images of powerful, empassioned, primal men and women, brutal and savage beasts vying for dominance. Visions of chaotic, driven, mad monsters, both overt and insidious filter through the mind.

It can be argued that both the writing and the music which evolved during this period developed out of a wish to become both something more and something less than what had come before. It developed out of the desire to be far more clear-cut and pure, without hiding behind metaphor, simile and hyperbole. This is outlined in the Imagist Manifesto, in which the authors specifically state that they wish for pieces "To use the language of common speech, but to employ always the exact word, not the nearly-exact, nor the merely decorative word". It can also be said that the movement developed from a desire to reconstruct and to some extent revitalise classical works into a far more accessible medium. Pieces such as Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen and James Joyce's Ulysses were reworkings of ancient Norse and Greek mythologies respectively, thus presenting them to the more common audience of the time (These pieces now holding high regard primarily within the upper classes).

The journalistic style of the time was typified by a far more vicious and cut-throat manner, further supporting Freud's theories of the self and desires for social and sexual dominance. It also plays into the ideals of a much more functional and subversive mindset in much of the modern world. Figures such as Alfred Harmsworth, aka Lord Northcliffe and William Randolph Hearst, who were the primary influences for the 1941 film Citizen Kane, were, for the most part, self-made business moguls, achieving heights of success through sheer tenacity and a desire for dominance within the publishing world. Political hunger and megalomania, along with conflicting, self-contradictory viewpoints displayed them as voracious men with the ability to manipulate their circumstances to suit their needs. William Randolph Hearst himself was a devilishly efficient publisher and reporter, prioritising within his own paper the fact that the systematic extermination of the Jews in Europe was happening, whereas all other newspapers attempted to downplay the news of the Holocaust. Both displayed a desire for power and glory, Hearst having been elected as the New York Democrat member of the House of Representatives between 1903 and 1907 and having vied for the positions of Mayor in both 1905 and 1909 and Governor in 1906. Alfred Harmsworth ascended from Lord to Baronet in 1904 and only a year later elevated to Baron, then in 1916, most likely as a consequence of his political influence through his exposure of the weakness in Prime Minister Herbert Henry Asquith's government and role in bringing David Lloyd George to power he was appointed Director for Propoganda, his anti-German publications being so powerful that a warship was sent to bomb his Elmwood country home in an attempt to assassinate him. Two years later he was made Viscount of St Peter's in the County of Kent. His and Hearst's levels of success, combined with their general attitudes, were the primary contributors towards the character of Citizen Kane, particularly aspects such as Hearst's long-lived affair with Marion Davies, his quests for power and glory, his pushes for a war between America and Spain (This particular part being mirrored almost completely within the film down to the line "You provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war", reflecting Hearst's "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war), and his construction of a palacial mansion.

To actually examine Citizen Kane you need to analyse it in three different ways; cinematographically, psychologically and how it has been constructed through the derivation from various sources.

As a piece of cinema it has both its successes and its failures. It is effective at constructing a story through multiple source materials, every shot appears to have a purpose and there is no breakdown in coherency or contradictory information. That said certain scenes feel as though they last too long and outstay their welcome. Furthermore, the ending reveal of Rosebud being the name of the sled, although arguable as a misdirection for the audience, also feels as though Welles is saying that the audience is not intelligent enough to purely speculate on their own as to what Rosebud could truly be. From a directorial standpoint, I would have had it end on the journalists suggesting that Rosebud was something he had lost long ago and could never regain, and be done with that.

From a psychoanalytical standpoint, the character of Kane is very intriguing, his mind appearing to have been twisted from a very early point to firstly a man obsessed with success to any cost, feigning ideals which he would later disregard because to maintain them would mean the sacrifice of all that he was working towards and secondly a being that feeds upon love and yet can not reciprocate. All of this could logically be reasoned as being a consequence of his being taken from his parents against his will, thus meaning that he developed a far more hungry, yearning attitude, needing love and affirmation from all possible sources.

Kane's twisting of his own principles, as well as his complete disregard for them, can be viewed as, from a psychological standpoint, being the result of his hunger for success over-taking him and being incapable of recognising such a failing. . You could summarise it as that he is Charles Foster Kane and he will be granted every success he aims for, no matter how high the cost.

Throughout the film Kane almost constantly displays a methodical, thought out personality, but this can be seen to de-evolve when Susan Alexander leaves him and he tears apart their bedroom in a fit of primal, savage, unfettered rage. Through this scene it is being made clear to the audience that failure has become too great an enemy for his mind to take rationally.

His use of Rosebud as his dying word can be seen as a significant in that Rosebud signifies the point where not only did everything for him change, but also lost a life in which he knew both how to love and had unconditional love. Rosebud can be seen as signifying an instantaneous rise and fall of the emotional side of Kane.

As a collective representation of several real life source materials, particularly Hearst and Northcliffe, it is effective in combining the sources into a believable character whose sums do not contradict the intentions of the film itself; the character at times may contradict himself, but this is to affect and impress upon the audience that he is not above going against his previous statements. It is a powerful and effective legion of important figures used to outline that regardless of the level of power a man possesses, they can still have an unseemly and ignoble end.

It is interesting to note that Orson Welles himself appeared to follow a very similar path to Kane. He became self-destructive, lost his looks, aside from weight his image almost mirrored Kane's. It is rather strange how self-prophetic for Welles the film was.