Talk:Citizen Kane/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Technical mistakes

I've removed the following paragraph from "Technical mistakes". The butler clearly states during the film that he was present to hear Kane's last words.

"When Kane utters the word "rosebud" before he dies, surprisingly, no one seems to be around. He seems to be alone in a room and he does not say it out loud, just whispers. Then, one wonders how the world comes to know about it." Apathetic 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[Text moved here from main article] (Citation Needed) - Are these mistakes or innovations? [posted by Wilhelmurg on 26 August 2006] --Miss Dark 01:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Citizen Kane preceeded method acting?

How can Citizen Kane be considered a "predecessor of method acting" when Stanislavski, (as in "Stanislavski method"), was dead for years before Citizen Kane was made??? --- Someone else 00:42 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the subject, my first question is whether the Stanislavski Method was widely popular at the time, and whether Welles was aware of it. If not, Wells could not really be considered an adherant to Stanislavski's philosophy. Personally, when I hear the term "method acting" I think of the cinema of the 1970s and actors such as Brando and DiNiro. Did the rediscovery of CK in the 1960s influence their belief that the Stanislavski Method could be effective? We need someone better versed in Hollywood history to answer that one.Ionesco 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know a bit about this. I'm absolutely sure that Orson Welles would have known of Stanislavsky. Welles was a theatre actor before he went into film, and Stanislavsky's ideas were a major shaping force on modern dramatists such as Chekhov and Ibsen. Stanislavskian acting is often blurred with 'Method Acting' as if they're the same thing, but in fact Method Acting is a particular branch of Stanislavskian theory that developed in America in the 30s and 40s (becoming famous in the 50s with Marlon Brando and James Dean; Al Pacino and Robert De Niro represent a later period of an already existing school). The differences between Stanlislavsky and Method Acting are extremely vague and indefinable (try reading the current Wikipedia articles and see if you can understand a word of them). But the basic point is that it's probably better to call Welles's style an early form of method acting, rather than a precursor (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). The Singing Badger 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Peter Brogdanovich on the US DVD commentary, not only was Welles familiar with it, he in fact detested it, on the grounds that as a director he wanted an actor 'to be able to change his delivery at the drop of a hat without worrying too much about his motivation', as he apparently liked to experiment with such things. JDS2005 06:59, 8 January, 2007 (UTC)

---

Quoting style

Wereon made some changes marked as "quoting sytle." They moved all the quotes after periods in sentences to before the periods. Though commmon today, it is technically incorrect. When a quote ends a sentence, the quote marks should come after the ending mark, not before. If there is a Wikipedia Style Guide page that refutes this, I'd be happy to see it. Otherwise, we should keep the quote marks outside ending sentence marks except in special circumstances. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:21, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

See the Jargon File's take on it. Personally, I've been doing it this way (periods outside) for as long as I can remember. Not recommending one way or another, just throwing in my two cents. --Cuervo 05:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Predominantly American convention results in things like "this." Predominantly British convention results in things like "this". (In fact more often things like 'this'.) Oh, and my apologies to Canadians, Australians, etc etc etc for not mentioning them: I'm just trying to simplify. Arguably, they're merely two (or three) different conventions. But Britishness/Americanness aside, the predominantly British one is superior: see "Punctuation and Human Freedom", an essay by Geoffrey Pullum in The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax. To quote Pullum (very precisely) when discussing the dilemmas of the author of a manuscript for publication by a conventional US publisher:

. . . But now suppose that you want to say this:

(2) Pullum notes that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string ‘the string’.

You won't be able to publish it. . . .

That's from p. 69. Get hold of the essay; you'll enjoy it. -- Hoary 04:46, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I think, if you'll check a general English style manual (as opposed to the style manual of a particular press organization), the correct form is that single words, incomplete thoughts (ones that wouldn't end with their own punctuation), and quotes used for emphasis end inside the punctuation set of the parent sentence (or "before the ending mark"). Complete thoughts (such as citations in complete sentences) and full quotations (those that end with their own punctuation) end outside the punctuation set of the parent (or "after the ending mark"). In the case where the second type of quote has different punctuation from the parent sentence, the punctuation from the quote ends the sentence. Bob said would be a statement ending with a period, but if you include what Bob said, Bob said, "How dare you kick my dog?," the interrogative mark becomes the final punctuation of the sentence, inside the quotes. Note from my example that the comma following the question mark is inside the quotes because the example is a complete sentence. If I refered to the sentence later as an object or a title, like "Bob said...", instead of using the complete sentence over and over, the quotes indicate a single object but the contents are no longer a complete thought so the comma goes outside the quotes. The idea that Americans "always" do it one way and that Brits "always" do it another is apocryphal; neither method is correct, although I don't doubt that many people believe that it is. Wikipedia may have its own style conventions that contradict this, and each press style manual may have a slightly different take on this (the newspaper I work for insists that the quotes always go inside, while the research organization I worked for prior maintained that they always go outside; neither convention agrees with the way I was taught in school and University). For more, I recommend Strunk & White and Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Canonblack 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Turner's Comments About Colorizing The Film

I corrected innacuracies regarding Turner's comments about colorizing Kane. The previous writer stated that Turner Entertainment had announced plans to colorize 'Citizen Kane' and had to abandon these plans due to public outcry. This is simply not true. Turner did make a comment about colorizing the film to reporters, and that comment did create a swift backlash from colorization opponents. However, Turner Entertainment, as a corporate entity never announced a colorized Kane as an upcoming project. That being the case, they certainly would not have ever been able to "cancel" a project that they did not have in any stage of production, or pre-production to begin with.

I also deleted the coment that Welles "reportedly" made comparing colorization to Crayolas. That comment is a rumor as far as anyone can tell, and there does not seem to be any verifiable source for that comment cited.

Awards

Halló! See awards at [1]. Regards Gangleri 05:10, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Okay, so ?...Dowew 01:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well's accident.

". (Welles actually tripped and broke his ankle during the filming of that scene, but the scene continued and made it into the final print of the film.)"

I believe that's combining two separate incidents. There is a scene where Wells has to run down stairs, and he hurt himself, but that take did not make it into the final print. The scene where Wells goes on a rampage in his second wife's room and smashes the furniture is the one where an injury is left in the final cut. Wells cut his hand, but didn't want to stop filming, and he made sure you couldn't see his hand in that scene. My source is Ebert's commentary for the movie.--Havermayer 2 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

I believe Havermayer is correct in his description. I will try to research and correct this.Clementine85 23:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Please give more details on the plot. There's a lot of information on its impact but little on its plot. Redwolf24 7 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Agreed, the plot summary is horrendous. There is a much better summary in the Charles Kane article. 66.75.247.206

Actor Buddy Swan

This article states: "The only remaining living cast members are Buddy Swan and Sonny Bupp, who played Kane at age 8 and Kane's young son, respectively." However, the article for Buddy Swan indicates he has been dead for over a decade. Anyone in the know should correct. (July 19, 2005)

Image

I originally downloaded this for the Triumph of the Will page, but since I haven't been able to cite Orson Welles actually being inspired by the film, I'm taking it off. The image remains though. Enjoy. Palm_Dogg 18:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

List of references in other work

I removed the list of refences because they aren't a part of the film. They are an interesting legacy to the movie and perhaps something of the effect can be mentioned, but each individual reference does not belong here. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 07:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

possible vanddalism from school ip

this is a school ip--68.125.168.193 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"this innovative masterpiece is perhaps the most influential in the history of film"

Endlessly discussed and dissected by critics and viewers alike, this innovative masterpiece is perhaps the most influential in the history of film - Where's the source for this comment? - G3, 18:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's endlessly discussed and dissected by both critics (or anyway scholars) and, well, those (rare) viewers who are inclined to discuss and dissect. But I don't think it was innovative; rather it was a good mixture of ingredients that were newish but not new. As for its influence, there may well have been some, but the article doesn't seem to show it. I'd expect that any assertion in the introduction such as this would be supported by additional material lower down. And this is why I'm reverting some IP's unexplained removal of the FACT tag. -- Hoary 00:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

is it just me or does the riticism section need more than one guys opinion?

I've added a bit about Pauline Kael's infamous attack on the authorship of the movie. Count Ringworm 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Welles Inaccuracies

At present this is full of inaccurate, POV nonsense (eg. the claim that Welles' life resembled that of Kane more than it did Hearst's: Welles died in a relatively small house a few hours after having dinner with a few close friends. He was in a loving relationship...and had no manservants). Change it, please, somebody.

The quote you refer to is by Robert Wise. Was Robert Wise 'anti-Welles'? I don't know, but the opinion of someone who worked on the film is inherently interesting even if you disagree with it. The Singing Badger 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sims

You guys forgot to mention that EA Games's The Sims uses the cheatcode "rosebud" as a money code. Clearly, a reference to Citizen Kane. RocketMaster 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler Tags

Perhaps this page should be cleaned up a bit to indicate spoilers; some readers obviously have not seen the film, and learning within a few sentences of the article the meaning of "rosebud" can ruin a large part of the movie experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.19.19.189 (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Sure, but really, CK might be the most thoroughly-spoiled movie in history. Anybody who's read more than a few Peanuts strips knows the spoiler. It would be interesting to find out how many people who haven't seen the movie know the meaning of "rosebud". --63.25.225.157 18:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Clumsy sentence

In the trivia section: "Orson Welles attended and graduated from the Todd School in Woodstock, Illinois, and thus would have been influenced by and knowledge of the other major living characters of this particular era (in addition to William Randolph Hearst) that inspired the Kane character in the movie. These were the Chicago Utilities Magnate Samuel Insull (1859-1938) and Chicago Tribune Publisher Robert McCormick (1880-1955)."

Should read "... have been influenced by and have had knowledge of the...".

The real ghost busters

Theres an episode in the cartoon real ghost busters where they go try to take a gost out of a mansion, and all he sais is rosebud or rosebum, I dont remember, and in the end of the episode the ghost leaves the mansion in a sled. Why isnt this in the page??????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.128.86.85 (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Guess: Because most people who happen to know of this factoid realize that even if the word is "Rosebud" the factoid says nothing of interest or significance about the movie itself. If it's significant to "the cartoon real ghost busters" (whatever that might be), then, after checking its veracity, stick it in the relevant article. -- Hoary 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But isnt it like reference to the movie?????????

Yes, it's a reference to the movie. So? -- Hoary 14:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Really trivial "trivia"

Here's a pile of what I thought was mere blather telling us nothing about the movie:

• The lyrics of the song "The Union Forever", on the White Stripes 2001 album White Blood Cells, are almost entirely composed of dialogue from Citizen Kane.

• The phrase "Rosebud", is also the title of an episode of The Simpsons, which has Mr. Burns looking for his childhood bear, Bobo. The only difference is that Burns voluntarily left his family, whereas in Citizen Kane, Kane was sent away by his mother.

• Thompson's rather snide line to the librarian, "Thanks for the use of the hall," is occasionally referenced in film and television as an inside joke to film buffs.

• In an episode of Family Guy, Peter Griffin is banned from Blockbuster. For recording over Citizen Kane, in which he gives away the ending and then continues to rant, adding that he just saved the renters, "Two boobless hours".

• In the movie, Over The Hedge, Ozzie the Opossum, is standing in front of a big crowd on the street. To save his life, he plays dead. Right after he falls, he looks at a rosebush, and says "Rosebud..."

• The robotic toy "Robosapien" says "Rosebud" when turned off.

I wiped it out. Let's take the bit about the White Stripes' song "The Union Forever", as an example. I can understand how this might be of interest to people interested in that song or the CD or the band; if it's of interest and significance, stick it there. I find it hard to believe that it's of interest or significance to anyone who's not interested in the song, the CD or the band. I'd dispute any claim that the sheer amount of "references in popular culture" is somehow significant, but if it were significant, then that's what the "What links here" link is for. -- Hoary 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Popular Culture References" section previously read:

Due to its iconic status, Citizen Kane has frequently been imitated, paid homage to and parodied in other works. On DVD audio commentaries, Simpsons writers have joked that they have referenced it so many times that "they could reconstruct the whole movie."

I removed the second section. It seemed arbitrary to mention The Simpsons in this article as well as the Citizen_Kane_in_popular_culture article. Originally I was just going to add a similar sentence about Peanuts, which referenced the film nearly as often (and is just as significant in its medium as The Simpsons is in TV), but then I figured this section doesn't really need examples, since there's a whole separate page of references. --63.25.225.157 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Kael link

I've just removed

* [http://www.paulrossen.com/paulinekael/raisingkane.html Pauline Kael's "Raising Kane", a long essay questioning the authorship of ''Citizen Kane'']

I have no reason to think that Kael's work is not conventionally copyright (and I don't mean copyleft). There is no explanation of its copyright status on this site. I've reason to think that it's a copyright infringement, and an obvious one. Perhaps I'm wrong, or again perhaps I'm right but WP articles should link to obvious copyright infringements. Comments? -- Hoary 14:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Academy Award

Since the film only one a single Academy Award (WRITING (Original Screenplay)) and not for best picture, it doesn't seem right to emphasize that in the intro. In fact, Citizen Kane is a rather famous example of a film that the Academy mostly snubbed. --Jeremy Butler 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Mistakes"

The superimposed cockatoo and matte-background beach party aren't mistakes, they are intentional parts of the film.--Son of Somebody 11:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. Cop 633 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Better yet, cite the assertions that these are errors. Deliberate special effects aren't mistakes.--Son of Somebody 03:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

They are cited. Roger Ebert describes them as mistakes in his DVD commentary on the film. If you know better, find a source that puts forward the alternative theory.Cop 633 15:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FOR SHAME!!! OR NOT! Sorry.

I'm considering using reference.com from now on instead since because it is the same as Wikipedia except with out the vandalism and bias. THIS PAGE has been copied from the Reference article on Citizen Kane. See here.http://www.reference.com/search?q=Citizen%20KaneCeltic Emperor 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, reference.com copies Wikipedia. Then it adds adverts, and gets money from them. Sneaky, eh? They can do this because Wikipedia's content isn't copyrighted. Cop 663 23:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My condolences, it just seemed unusual is all. I just had to know. Thanks for updating me.Celtic Emperor 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Citizenkane.jpg

Image:Citizenkane.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Will also check out other images used in the article. DarkAudit 03:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

UK release date

Thia article quoted a Feb. 1942 UK release for the film, but it seems to have been release in early October, 1941. There's a review in the Times of Monday October 13th; it doesn't give an opening date - presumably sometime the previous week if it was reviewed for trhe Monday edition - and it was being shown at the Gaumont, Haymarket. Shimgray | talk | 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gregg Toland

"Specifically, Toland often used telephoto lenses to shoot close-up scenes."

This needs a citation as I have never read this anywhere. I'm not saying it's not true, I would, however, like to see where this originated from. My understanding was that Toland almost always used wider angle lens in this film.

"Anytime deep focus was impossible — for example in the scene when Kane finishes a bad review of Alexander's opera while at the same time firing the person who started the review — Toland used an optical printer to make the whole screen appear in focus (one piece of film is printed onto another piece of film)."

Toland would not have used the optical printer; Linwood Dunn was in charge of that. This would have been worked out before shooting the scene with Welles, Toland and Dunn discussing what could and could not have been accomplished. And there probably would have been tests shot and run through the optical printer to see what exactly could be accomplished. Dunn is really the unsung hero of Citizen Kane in that about half the film required optical printing work and many of the shots are exquisitely executed. So many of these optical effects are seamlessly carried out that the viewer is oblivious to the fact that they are "effects" shots.Clementine85 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hearst's revenge

I have read somewhere that Hearst never again allowed Welles's name to appear in his papers. I don't know if this is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.59.212 (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Typewriter

Hello, yesterday I added a sentence, certainly not fully developed, but cited. Someone removed it saying maybe it belonged elsewhere. Apologies I am new to this article. But it was striking enough to me that this image was missing from this article that I looked it up, provided a good source (an Oxford University Press collection of criticism should be verifiable) and added it. I respectfully suggest that "w e a k" remain in this Wikipedia article. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 19:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Themes

I removed this section from the article because it contains unsourced original research.--J.D. (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The journalist's mission of retrieving the meaning of Kane's final word leads him in the end to conclude that a man's life cannot be summed up in one word and, as he picks up pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, that "rosebud" is a "missing piece" in his life. The movie is made up of fragments of Kane's life, shown in non-chronological order, for the viewer to put together.

When his second wife abandons him, Kane begins destroying her room. He grabs a snow globe and is about to throw it when he sees the falling snowflakes inside. The image of falling snow evokes involuntary memories in Kane. He remembers being sent away by his mother when it was snowing, making him utter "Rosebud" — another memory of the occasion.

Another theme expounded in the film is the limits of power and money. Even though Kane is incredibly wealthy and powerful he fails in using that wealth and power to win his election as governor, promote his second wife, Susan, as an opera star, or obtain the love and loyalty of those around him. In the end he is portrayed as a lonely old man, shuttered inside Xanadu, the ornate palace he has built to soothe his ego. His expensive possessions are helpless to replace the emotional losses in his life.

Other lesser themes are the inner workings of the media (creating the newsreel, running a newspaper), the vagaries of time (expressed in the various characters' individual memories, also the inability to recapture the past or escape the past) and the desecration of the American Dream.

Massive cleanup

I've started to go through this article and cleanup the existing citations and moved around sections to provide a more coherent order. There is tons of great stuff, it just needs to be organized better. I've also noticed a glaringly lack of citations for a lot of factoids pertaining to all aspects of the film. I've got a few books on Kane that I can look up and provide some much-needed citations. It would be nice to see this article reach FA status where it rightly belongs.--J.D. (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging Charles Foster Kane

Seriously, there's no reason all that information in that article can't exist here. There's never going to be a remake or sequel to this film. *Lord forbid* Alientraveller (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the notion. The character is completely film-centric with Citizen Kane and does not transcend it. All real-world context such as intended characteristics or critical analysis will be completely in relation to the film. Merging it would reduce redundancy, and I see too much in-universe information ("Biography") and original research ("Political views"). Cited information about him can belong on the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Help!

I'm trying to hyperlink the reference to Delmonico's to the article on the restaurant, but it keeps producing a red link. I thought I knew how to do this! Either I'm doing something wrong or the software is broken somehow!66.72.38.235 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Kea2 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Music

I heard, that music from Citizen Kane includes some of Richard Wagner's operas. Is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.27.90.251 (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In the newsreel there is a short snippet from the Tannhäuser overture, heard when the announcer mentions that Kane built the Chicago Opera House for Susan Alexander. I don't believe there is more than that. -- kosboot (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start working on a separate article concerning the music for this film - as soon as my home computer is fixed. -- kosboot (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Really?

"Citizen Kane is a 1941 classic American dramatic film released in 1941..." Really?RayJohnstone (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Shenanigans over Citizen Kane Oscar

Is it warranted to include a section on the re-issue of the Best Screenplay Oscar & subsequent scandal regarding the 1994 Sotherby's & 2003 Christie's auctions? It seems a little catty, (Beatrice Welles does not come off well in the media) but the story is interesting. How much space (if any) should go to anecdotes? Kea2 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories

This page has all the following categories
Category:Films set in the 1890s
Category:Films set in the 1900s
Category:Films set in the 1910s
Category:Films set in the 1920s
Category:Films set in the 1930s
How does that work? Storeye (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the film covers Charles Foster Kane's life over several decades. I'd tend to agree that placing it in a category for every single year is a bit excessive, but I really don't have a better answer. The movie really does span several decades of time. It could be argued that it's only set in the 1940s, and everything else is a flashback and therefore doesn't count, I guess. -- RationalIce (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah right, thankyou. I only understood it as being in one decade and the rest as flashbacks, but I can see the reasoning for it now even if I don't agree with it. Thankyou for explaining it to me Storeye (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Negative lost in 1970 Spanish villa fire?

I am slightly concerned that the article claims the original nitrate negative of Kane was lost in the fire which is supposed to have also taken the only known print of Too Much Johnson. I raise this point because the 1939 agreements between Welles, RKO and the Mercury Theatre give ownership of the negative and all prints to RKO. The relevant passage from the agreement is quoted here. I recall that Welles cast off his remaining rights in Kane to complete It's All True, asserted I think in the Kael essay. So there is no basis to assume that Welles would have been in posession of the negative. Philip Cross (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Pauline Kael

The articles suggests that Pauline Kael attributed much of the greatness of this film to Mankiewicz' script. This is not the case at all as anyone who read the essay would know. Halfabeet (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hearst's response

"Although Hearst's efforts to suppress it damaged the film's success, they backfired in the long run, since almost every reference of Hearst's life and career made today typically includes a reference to the film's parallel to it. The irony of Hearst's efforts is that the film is now inexorably connected to him. This connection was reinforced by the publication in 1961 of W. A. Swanberg's extensive biography titled Citizen Hearst."

Doesn't this whole paragraph seem highly opinionated and subjective? Suggestion that it be removed to keep to factual basis.65.69.235.113 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO this is an important article and is thick with unsupported details and opinions. There are many large sections with descriptions of people, events, equipment, etc. that are without any source given. On the other hand at least the article is very well presented and factual, obviously written by at least one expert. But since even experts aren't allowed to quote themselves in Wiki, we'll never know what's an opinion unless we do our own research. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible plot hole

Was anyone around to hear him say rosebud? I don't recall ever seeing anyone mention who heard rosebud, nor do I remember seeing anyone hear the words Rosebud in the beginning. Could someone clear this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.226.174 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere towards the end of the film the majordomo tells the reporter that he heard him say it, which means he would have had to be in the room which was never shown fully on screen. Nonetheless, this is brought up with some regularity, to the point a "great story" circulates that when someone brought it up to Welles he buttonholed him with a "Don't ever speak a word of this to anyone!" moment.«»bd(^speechify _BOLO) 23:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Popular culture"

I've just removed the following:

In a Simpsons episode, entitled "Guess Who's Coming to Criticize Dinner?" Homer satirises Charles Foster Kane, beginning with: "People will tell them what I tell them to think...when you tell me what to tell them to think." This is in response to Lisa claiming that Homer is being "cruel for no reason" in his food reviews. The rest of the scene mocks the scene in Citizen Kane where Kane is shouting at "Boss" Jim W Geddy's about sending him to jail.

This seems to be mere trivia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel it not mere trivia. It's exactly where it belongs: references to Citizen Kane in popular culture. It may seem trivia to you but one must realize that people are going to look at things differently. There have been doctoral dissertations written on The Simpsons and what the show says about society. I would reinstate the deleted entry. -- kosboot (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are no citations, then how do we know it's a particularly popular parody? I have deleted all that trivia. Alientraveller (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I happened to see a Simpsons episode yesterday (the one where their house is sinking) in which "There is a Man" is performed (with slgithly altered lyrics) as a tribute to Mr Burns (whose name -- Charles Montgomery Burns -- suggests Charles Foster Kane). Such references should be included in this and other articles. Wikipedia's distaste for "trivia" is ridiculous. Fifty years from, people will be using Wikipedia as a reference for precisely this sort of thing. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary

The person who did this is terrible. If I have time I will give a running summary of the plot. The previous version was much better. -- kosboot (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Alientraveller (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you deleted the popular culture section, but am very happy that you reinstated the former plot summary. If it remains stable, I'll try to flesh out the details. I prefer running description of the plot (i.e. as the film unfolds) than retroactive summaries (i.e. telling who Kane was before you see the newsreel). -- kosboot (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I must say that after reading the plot summary I was shocked by the writing style, especially the ending where it talks about the possible meanings of rosebud and the sign stating "No Trespassing". I do not feel that viewer interpretation belongs in a plot summery, even if it is blatantly obvious as to the directors original intentions. Also can it be straightened out whether Kane inherits a gold or silver mine as I read both claims in close proximity to each other, I believe it was a gold mine and have changed the article accordingly, but someone needs to check.User:RadicalPaddy 02:19, 26 February 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.250.161 (talk)

IMHO, most of this section should be pruned heavily. Too much of it is written like this sentence:

Thompson then interviews Kane's personal business manager Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane), best friend Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten), Susan for a second time, and Kane's butler Raymond (Paul Stewart) who recalls him saying "Rosebud" while holding a small glass globe — the same globe Kane dropped as he died.

If I were a casual reader and didn't really know what the movie was about, this kind of detail would not help. I think if this article wants to include a plot, it should be a plot summary and would naturally exclude microscopic details of any single event. It's purpose should be to make people want to see the movie and/or learn more - to inspire interest. These kinds of run-on sentences read more like sedatives than stimulants. As it is, I certainly wouldn't put it right up front. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I remade the plot summary (see the diff here). What do you think?--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 00:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Gold or Silver Mine?

The script pointedly says: "the wealth of the earth's third richest gold mine." I'll change the text to reflect that. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Featured Article - request for help/comment

Personally I find it disappointing that one of the most important films ever made is only a B-class article. Seems that the bulk of the article is in pretty good shape but needs a bit of work to reach FA status.

I suggest the following needs to be done:

• New section dealing with pre-production of Kane, encompassing script development between Houseman, Mankiewicz and Welles at Victorville, Welles pre-Hollywood background, his ground breaking deal with RKO, reasons that he didn't go with Smiler with a Knife/Heart of Darkness as his debut feature. Parallels with other work e.g Sturges' The Power and the Glory (film) and his own earlier work (1936 radio broadcast featuring the March of Time obituary on Sir Basil Zaharoff). How due to spiralling costs neccessity became the mother of invention e.g to save time and money, the collapse of Kane's marriage to Emily covering several years is telescoped into the breafast table sequence.
• Expand cast section and merge with the sources of the characters.
• More detail on it's commercial failure and it's renaissance from the 1950's onwards.
• How Kane became both a burden and his saving to Welles.
• Create new section showing referenced ways in which Kane has inspired/influenced filmmakers, not just the usual Simpsons references.
• Expand criticism section, at moment the bulk of it deals with Ray Carney's criticism of it. It should be possible to find some other dissenting voices.
• Find references for much of the article. Shouldn't be too difficult as their is a voluminous library on Kane/Welles.
• Spell/grammar check.
• Expand bibliography.

There has been plenty of good work done on the article and I suspect that it would take just a little push to get it to FA status. However in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia (and Kane!) I'm open to suggestions/comments as to how it can be taken forward. yorkshiresky (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As with all of Wikipedia, no one is stopping you from doing it. :-) But a look at the history will reveal that this article has had controversies, most recently with the plot. I, personally, prefer a plot that reveals only as much as the film reveals - I don't want to be told what is the sled when I first see it, and the previous authors did not always agree. I've promised to redo the plot, adding more detail, but time has not been on my side. As someone who knows the score (i.e. the actual music) to Kane fairly well, you did a very nice job, although Herrmann didn't write any music for War of the Worlds, and his "longtime" collaboration with Welles was really only from 1939 (although they first worked with one another in 1936, when Herrmann was a novice at radio). But thanks for a nice job. -- kosboot (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well me, Erik and J.D. made a start at User:Erik/Citizen Kane/Draft. Since it's been slow, I recommend taking what's sourced here, implementing that there, and then putting it on the mainspace for a temporary acceptable revision. Then the hard part of adding themes for GA status and delving into offline journals. Alientraveller (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Section

Its a rather meaningless point that the film "is not entirely without its critics", as if the criticism section is there just for the sake of it. Rodrigue (talk) 13:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That phrase is typically used in American English to denote that what follows will be negative comments (and NOT to mean that people have offered criticism - positive and negative - of the film). I suppose a more accurate phrase would be "The film has critics whose assessment is negative." But being an American who's first language is English, I don't find the current wording problematic. -- kosboot (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Title

The early drafts for the script of the film called it "An American." One can sense that original idea in the newsreel portion of the completed film where Kane says with emphasis that he's an American. Perhaps there should be a reference to that somewhere? -- kosboot (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Open for suggestions

I've been adding some source material along with moving some sections around. Any comments, pro or con, or other ideas and participation would be welcome. I worked on the Mankiewicz article starting in July and decided to incorporate some of that into this one. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I once visited the Orson Welles Papers held at the University of Indiana's Lilly Library in Bloomington, Indiana. I wasn't researching Kane, but if you have, it would be nice to cite some material there. Also, I think there are a couple of good articles in that book "Focus on Citizen Kane" from the 1970s. I intend to create a separate article on the musical score when I get a chance. -- kosboot (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just checked it online, Orson Welles Papers], and it looks like someone could discover a lot if they devoted the time. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sled

That sled addition sounds like original research or conjecture - and is therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. If someone can find an article with that written, I'd be fine with it. But I'd say leave it out until that source is found. -- kosboot (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We should just copy it here so it doesn't get lost (it even took me a while to find it.) In any case, it was clearly written as conjecture with no outside source even implied. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the passage:

The sled, being used by Kane to attack Thatcher when taken away from his parents, may also explain his later attitude towards life (including his relationship with his friends and women, his lust for power and his sometimes irrational behaviour). It seems to be that deprivation of his mother's care and love, the ruthless raising by Thatcher which resulted in an abnormal childhood, combined with unwanted wealth, had a traumatic impact upon his character. He felt unloved, and therefore seeked love aggressively, at any cost, be it from his wives, the public, his friends. His collapse is a result of his failure to fulfill this inner urge of his.

It's buried in the article with the note that it is contingent on the author to re-write with sourced material. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC).

Citizen Kane (score) article

This is an announcement of intentions. I'm getting ready to create an article devoted to the musical score of the film. The main part of the article will be a list (in table format) of the film's musical cues with their instrumentation. I've included a column for description of action, and I'm hoping that I and others will be happy to fill in brief descriptions of what happens in the course of the cue, or at least what's the action where it begins. I once had a list of the cues of the Newsreel (which are taken from previous RKO films), but maybe people out there know what it is.

Part of my intention is to take much of the current section on music and move and amplify it to the new article. If anyone has ideas or suggestions, feel free to mention them - or wait for the article. -- kosboot (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the following statement: "The score eschewed the typical Hollywood practice of scoring a film with virtually non-stop music." Other than perhaps Max Steiner's scores, films up until roughly the mid-80s were generally rather lightly scored, and that includes Citize Kane. This sentence should be removed or rewritten.

The change to heavy, almost continual scoring -- which I first noticed exiting Conan the Barbarian, when a woman said "Boy, did that film have a lot of music" -- has been noted, and not always favorably. I interpret it as the composer making up for a general lack of affect in films. It might also be that most composers aren't very talented, and they paper over that lack with a lot of notes. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The score for "Citizen Kane" was by the reknowned Bernard Herrmann. Since Welles had considerable experience in radio, where sound is everything (pun intended), Welles knew the importance of music and sound editing and paid special attention to these areas. The music was an important, integral part of the film. 209.77.230.57 (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Today this article was wiped clean before being restored. There have been many other instances of vandalism recently. Is it possible to "nominate" this article to be protected so that edits only get done after review? (I don't know the exact Wikipedia procedure.) -- kosboot (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I've never done one, it looks like you get protection here. In the meantime, pick one of these warning tags and put it on the vandal's talk page. Put as many and as strongly worded as appropriate. Since their IP address shows up with the warnings, they usually quit fairly soon. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

As a Cultural Icon

I actually think this section is kind of important (even without citations) because it shows the awareness of the movie (especially before the 1950s, this is very infrequent). So perhaps we can start a discussion on how such a section could be included or why some believe it should be excluded. I can see that some people would want citations to written material about the observations. In my personal opinion, that's overdoing it, because many pieces of evidence will not have written remarks about them.

If people really don't want that kind of section in the Citizen Kane article, perhaps another article should be started, something like "Citizen Kane in popular culture / as a cultural icon" so that such mentions can be listed and any citations can be cited. No doubt about it: Citizen Kane is an important film, and such a section or article will support and underscore that contention. -- kosboot (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur that section would be relevant, I was merely questioning the cultural impact of a Simpsons' episode. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The old version of that section had a number of examples of which the Simpsons formed a couple (but not all). It's not that the Simpsons have had an impact (although they do in their own way), but rather that Welles has had so much of an impact on the creators of the Simpsons that they have quoted and made puns on Kane so frequently. -- kosboot (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

It's not that the facts are irrelevant, IMO, but that they don't fit anywhere within the existing article. The likely place for a notation about the animated show would have been within "Recognition." But with the way Recognition now reads to insert a note about the Simpsons would stand out like a sore thumb and read like a downgrade of the film's importance. Taking a section that begins and ends as it is:

"In 1989, the United States Library of Congress deemed the film "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. . . . Village Voice 100 Greatest Films. Roger Ebert called Citizen Kane the greatest movie ever made."

And then tacking onto it even an abbreviated phrase, "The popular American sitcom The Simpsons parodied this film in a fifth-season episode called Rosebud," would seem not as another form of recognition but only another example of how pop TV sitcoms will take whatever they can to attract viewers and sell ads, i.e. another marketing idea. It would be like taking a clip of Seinfeld's "Soup Nazi" skit and inserting a link to it in an article about "The history of the Third Reich." And "iconic?" Don't think so.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does the whole article miss the essence, the conclusion of the story of the movie?

Seriously, let's put aside all the attention for camera, music and acting as well as trivia which definitely contribute to the fact that Citizen Kane is one of the best movies of all time - if not the best one, anyway. Let's focus on the story and there, we see that the movie isn't as much about wealth, success or politics as it is about a man who doesn't know to love, who dedicates his whole wealth and efforts to the goal to only be loved - under his terms. That's what the movie is about and may have been missed out for the first fourty years of reception due to a lack of emotionality among the critics themselves. And hell, I'm saying this a man! 84.75.158.68 (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is very appropriate for a discussion on Citizen Kane. Unless you can find a written citation to it in published literature, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. -- kosboot (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But it needs to be said. One doesn't need to know who William Randolph Hearst was to get the point. Citizen Kane is far more a critique of American society than of a newspaper magnate. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"Citizen Kane" is just a retelling of the "Faust" legend. The essence has not been missed. 209.77.230.57 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On the route to Class A: What needs to be done?

I'm still working on a separate music article and I still have in my mind to flesh out detail in the plot summary. But asides from that, what does this article need to get it placed into Class A? It looks very close, and the number of sources are very ample. Any ideas? -- kosboot (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, is this an encyclopedic article or a personal essay?

At the end of the plot section it say:

"The word "Rosebud" painted on the sled burns as the camera closes in on it in the furnace. For the viewer this is supposed to solve the "Rosebud" mystery. Perhaps, the sled is a token of the only time in his life when he was poor; perhaps, more than this, it represents the only time in his life when he was truly happy and wanted for nothing, a period in his life when money hadn't yet corrupted him. After this twist ending, the film ends as it began, with the "No Trespassing" sign at the gates of Kane's estate, Xanadu, an indication that sometimes we can never know the truth behind people."

I tried to fix the end by taking out the "PERHAPS" and the personal opinions of the movie, but someone actually reverted my edits. Then I see the history of this article, and that has been there in a while....seriously?Ricardoread (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. The paragraph you cite certainly does not belong in the plot section. It should follow the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. In particular:

A good plot summary should stick to describing what happened in the film, and does not interpret the reactions or motivations of the characters, attempt to explain the significance of events, or speculate about the purpose of the filmmakers - such analysis belongs in Critical reception and must come from reliable sources.

Anything else becomes analysis and should be placed in a separate section using proper references. There are a couple of other places in the plot where POV analysis also creeps in. Ideally, the plot should be rewritten to include more straight-forward, blow-by-blow action. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In a typical narrative film, I would agree with you. Citizen Kane is definitely not a typical film, where just describing what you see on the screen would either not make sense or just seem like a strange concatenation of facts without sense. It's like describing a word by saying "first you have w, then you have o, then you have r and you conclude with d." If you insist on a literal rendition of that filmplot, then I would insist on an addition section explaining what all the odd images/juxtopositions mean. It's like describing the narrative of an abstract film: you can describe what you see, but the meaning will be opaque unless you explain things in a different context and background. I definitely do not believe in analysis during the plot description, but excluding any type of explanation seems to go out of one's way to obfuscate things. -- kosboot (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The plot line of Citizen Kane is certainly no more complicated than many films -- and is, in fact, simpler than a lot of modern fast-paced, surreal films with many plot twists. Take a look at Fight Club (film), Barton Fink, Memento (film), No Country for Old Men (film), Minority Report (film), etc. -- all are GA articles with complicated surreal plots. The plots are related in simple straight-forward fashion -- much like reducing a screenplay to its beats. Any interpretations by the viewer would fall under original research. That sort of interpretation and analysis should be described in separate sections -- and only as it is found in the references. Again, take a look at how Barton Fink (an FA article) breaks down the analysis into style, symbolism, allusions, etc. -- while the plot is summarized briefly and simply. The same can be done with Citizen Kane. It can easily follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Toland's telephoto

The following statement "Specifically, Toland often used telephoto lenses to shoot close-up scenes." makes no sense in terms of getting deep focus. For a given image size and f-stop, a longer lens will give less depth of field. This needs to be checked and fixed, if necessary. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Kane's character....

I think Kane in this novel/film simply represents pre and post war france, just like the way Borat is a subliminal reference to the muslim world in general. 78.39.92.21 (talk) 09:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Goshtasp

Awards

Citizen Kane, with 9 nominations, was the 16th film to get more than six Academy Awards nominations. It was nominated for:

Of the 23 competitive awards which were given at the time (of which Citizen Kane would have been eligible for 13), Citizen Kane received 9 nominations. The Academy did not award Citizen Kane for the following:

• Best Actress for Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane
• Best Actress for Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane
• Best Supporting Actor for Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland
• Best Supporting Actor for George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher
• Best Supporting Actor for Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein
• Best Supporting Actress for Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane
• Best Special Effects for Vernon L. Walker

It was widely thought the film would win most of the awards it was nominated for but it only won the Best Writing (Original Screenplay) Oscar.

Award	Result	Winner
Outstanding Motion Picture	Nominated	RKO Pictures (Orson Welles, Producer) Winner was How Green Was My Valley (Darryl F. Zanuck, Producer)
Best Director	Nominated	Orson Welles Winner was John Ford - How Green Was My Valley
Best Actor	Nominated	Orson Welles Winner was Gary Cooper - Sergeant York
Best Writing (Original Screenplay)	Won	Orson Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz
Best Art Direction (Black-and-White)	Nominated	Perry Ferguson Van Nest Polglase A. Roland Fields Darrell Silvera Winner was Richard Day, Nathan H. Juran Thomas Little - How Green Was My Valley
Best Cinematography (Black-and-White)	Nominated	Gregg Toland Winner was Arthur Charles Miller - How Green Was My Valley
Best Film Editing	Nominated	Robert Wise Winner was William Holmes - Sergeant York
Best Music (Score of a Dramatic Picture)	Nominated	Bernard Herrmann Winner was Bernard Herrmann - The Devil and Daniel Webster
Best Sound Recording	Nominated	John O. Aalberg Winner was Jack Whitney - That Hamilton Woman

Mr Hall of England (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We could lengthen articles many times over if we made a point of stating negatives. The campaign against Kane made anything more than tokenism at the Oscars unlikely. Philip Cross (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Rosebud opinion

"There is a flaw in the logic of the screenplay which goes largely unmentioned. The entire plot hinges on the search for the meaning of Kane's last word: Rosebud. But, he was alone in the room, with the doors closed, when he breathed his last and the glass snowglobe fell from his hand and shattered. So, how did anyone know what he said?". If that doesn't sounds more like belonging to a "search for the mistake in the film" page. It shouldn't belong in there, I think, because there have been more plot holes in a lot more movies, and their pages don't state them. However, it's obvious that the plot hole is there, so it could be changed to a more professional statement, if not deleted. What do you think?

contribs) 00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 

Critical Reception

Along with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, this article should also point to MRQE.com - The Movie Review Query Engine. Not only does MRQE list every known review of the film currently available online, but the site also provides access to the original archived reviews written at the time of Citizen Kane's release (Variety, for example). This is MRQE's page for Citizen Kane: http://www.mrqe.com/movies/m100051058. Kinda shocking that MRQE is not a source already on these articles. --mliss4816 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The last shot of Citizen Kane IS NOT the "No Trespassing sign". It is the penultimate shot.

The very last shot is the 'K" Crest on the Iron Gates and Castle in the background. (Though it is so oft repeated one begins to think it is true!)

This is from Filmsite, written and edited by Tim Dirks. Please see link below.

"In the film's final shots - a symmetrical reversal of the film's beginning images, a dissolve shows the exterior of the Kane's palatial mansion at dusk, panning up with the black smoke of his burning possessions pouring from the chimney of his palace and filling the sky. The smoke of Kane's youth - his sled - disappears into the night sky. The camera pans down the chain-link fence where the sign "No Trespassing" is visible again as it was at the film's start. The film fades out on the "K" of the crest of the Kane estate. The audience is again left on the outside of the wire-fence - back where the story began."

http://www.filmsite.org/citi.html

Can someone who knows how to use these new fangled inter tubes please fix this? Thanks.

Piewackett (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC) User Piewackett Piewackett (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please fix/clarify this?

In the beginning of the article, it says this movie is Orson Welles' film debut (the link takes you to directorial debutes, but the article doesn't clarify if it's his directorial or acting debut). Also, according to his filmography, it is not his first film in either categories. Briar On Fire 05:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briaronfire (talk • contribs)

Odds and Ends

The "deep focus" cinematography of Toland is due to his use of wide angle lenses (such as 28mm, 35mm, etc.) and small apertures. He also used, as I recall, a split-image attachment to a lens, which allows the cameraman to film in focus both the foreground and background at the same time (but my memory is vague on this). Also, it was common at the time for the movie studios to put anyone's name they wanted for screenplay credit on a film, hence the Manckiewizc/Welles screenplay controversy. Those two were just bandying around screenplay credit--heck, it could of been given to anyone, a babysitter, a bartender, anyone. The practise was stopped by the Writers Guild in 1947 as I recall. But even today we don't really know who writes films since half a dozen writers may have worked on a film and script theft is so common in Hollywood that it seems almost every movie is stolen these days. Currently, under Writers Guild (WGA) rules, I seem to recall you have to contribute at least 1/3 of the screenplay if you want credit. Welles could have contributed numerous ideas to the film while not actually "typing" them into the screenplay. Also, Welles' contract with RKO specifically required him to write the screenplay. Also, there was a clause in the contract which said that all writing for "Citizen Kane" was the property of Mercury Productions, which was "deemed the author and creator of this product". So the writer, in the legal sense, was Mercury Productions. Xanadu was originally going to be called Alhambra. The breakfast scene between Kane and Emily covering the whole history of their marriage was stolen from Thornton Wilder's one act play "The Long Christmas Dinner". And let's not forget that "Rosebud" is the greatest McGuffin of all time! The dancing ladies at the party were the wives of actual studio chieftains. Welles cut his hand in the scene where he destroyed Susan Alexander's apartment and sprained his ankle in the scene where he chases Boss Jim Gettys down the stairs (I assume this is why he wore the cast). Many think that Toland's cinematography is what makes the visuals so stunning but RKO had one of the best special effects departments, headed by Vernon Walker and with the famous Linwood Dunn. With use of the optical printer Dunn modified up to 50% of the film, and in some reels 80% to 90%. In the newsreel scene at the beginning of the film the editors stomped on it and dragged it across the floor to give it a battered, grainy, newsreel look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.230.57 (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Special Effects Section Misleading

Under the "Special Effects" section it is stated that Orson Welles pioneered special effects for the film, when in fact, he did no such thing--it was done by Linwood Dunn. Welles didn't even know what an optical printer was until he was shown.

Screenplay section

I found this to be utterly wrong - "Orson Welles said that his preparation before making Citizen Kane was to watch John Ford's Stagecoach forty times. Throughout Kane, it is true to see borrowed techniques from Ford, however most of the genius of Kane was its references to older European filmmakers with specific references to Fritz Lang, F. W. Murnau, Erich von Stroheim, and Jean Renoir." John Ford expanded upon what Murnau (his idol; Ford is arguably his greatest disciple) did and equaled what Renoir was doing. He was as cinematically sophisticated and modern, perhaps more so, than any of his contemporaries. That bit is remarkably ignorant of John Ford and the qualities of American cinema. I'm taking it out.

And, technically, Erich von Stroheim is an American filmmaker, not an "older European filmmaker." He became an American citizen, he never directed a film in Europe, he learned his craft in the US, and his career is almost entirely based in Hollywood. JonasEB (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External references

One of these might be backwards, but I have two Qs, so will put it all here.

First Q - the article states: "The story is a roman à clef", and links out to that article, but the movie gets no corresponding mention.

Second Q - there is a link at the bottom in the Categories List (Films shot in San Diego, California), but there is no mention of San Diego in the CK article.

NavyVet6989 (talk) 07:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Release Date(s)

Sorry, I'm new to editing and nervous to mess anything up.

Shouldn't it be noted that while the NYC premiere date was May 1st 1941, the actual release date was Sept 5th, 1941?

References: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title.jsp?stid=89 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/