1. Citizen Kane 1941
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/
Here's a paper I wrote for my "History of Motion Pictures" class.
Credibility of Characters in “Citizen Kane”
While analyzing the writing of the script for “Citizen Kane”, a question is posed- what did Mankiewicz and Welles need to do to make the actions of the characters believable? Specifically, what did the writers need to do to make the audience believe that Charles Foster Kane would leave the mother of his child and the prospects of a lucrative political career for someone shrill and whiny, the likes of Susan Alexander? The reasons are found within Emily’s social status, Susan’s naiveté, and the void Kane felt which was left by a life which he had never been allowed to have.
Emily Monroe Norton’s social status made her the perfect wife for Kane. She was the personification of the decisions that Kane was expected to make. Kane was expected to marry well, have a family, and continue to live the privileged life. He was under constant public scrutiny because he was a popular public figure. The fact that he married the President’s niece, the closest a democratic society can get to royalty, made him even more of a public figure. Both social statuses combined to make the couple larger than life. Even though the honeymoon was clearly over soon after the marriage, as was evident by the fact that he spent more time at the newspaper than he did with his bride, he stayed married to her because that was what he was expected to do. (It is interesting how this continues to be an issue in society; it is one of the many points made in the film that makes the story timeless.) He could have left her as soon as he had met Susan, but that would cause a scandal which he was not prepared to manage.
Susan was naïve; she professed to be so from the moment she was introduced. The fact that she did not know who Kane was allowed him to be whoever he wanted to be. In the scrutinized life that Kane led, it was a welcome change. Jedediah said it best when he said that Kane once described her as “a cross-section of the American people.” Susan was the personification of the life that Kane was never allowed to have: live simply, exist for the sake of existing, and live your life the way that you want to live it. In Kane’s mind, this is what real people did; this is what Kane wanted to do. In going to Susan, he could escape into his own world where he was not a rich and famous man, but simply a man who was important to a woman. He was not important to her because of his money, but because he would listen to her, give her encouragement, and express the feeling that she could do whatever she wanted to do if only she wanted it enough. He could never have done this with Emily.
As a child, Kane lost the only life he knew as soon as the money came in. The fact that the film portrays “Rosebud” as his sled does not mean he longed for his sled, nor does it necessarily indicate that he longed for a simpler time in his life. What Kane longed for was a life he was only allowed to taste, never to have. Ironically, even though Kane had millions of dollars and was afforded every opportunity in the world, he longed for the values of a simpler life. Interestingly enough, however, when he made the choice to leave Emily, he did not opt to abandon his fortune and live a simple life with Susan. Instead, he drew Susan into the only world he knew- his world- and expected her to love him on his “own terms”. He hoped to buy Susan’s love, for Kane neither knew how to love nor how to receive it. He continued to spend his money, and tried to buy objects to physically fill the emotional void left by the fact that he could never have a simple life. Moreover, he built Susan a castle in which to live, in the hopes that he could treat her like one of his Venus statues. Only when Susan left and did something that was not “according to his plan” did he realize that every action he had taken in his life was narcissistic. For this, he blamed this thought: had he not been ripped away from the life he could have had, perhaps he would have been able to receive the character-building that being impoverished may have given him. Kane’s money and upbringing robbed him, not of his ability to love, but of his ability to learn how to love.
It would have been just as easy for Mankiewicz and Welles to portray Emily as the unpleasant antagonist as it would have been to portray Susan as dim-witted. They did neither, because that was not what the story was ultimately about. The antagonist in the story was not Emily or Susan; it was society. Therefore, the writers allowed the audience to believe Kane could leave Emily. At the same time, they showed that choosing Susan was not much of a change for him. The antagonist remained the same, and it was one which all of the money in the world could not allow Kane to escape, no matter which decision he made.
Here's a paper I wrote for my "History of Motion Pictures" class.
Credibility of Characters in “Citizen Kane”
While analyzing the writing of the script for “Citizen Kane”, a question is posed- what did Mankiewicz and Welles need to do to make the actions of the characters believable? Specifically, what did the writers need to do to make the audience believe that Charles Foster Kane would leave the mother of his child and the prospects of a lucrative political career for someone shrill and whiny, the likes of Susan Alexander? The reasons are found within Emily’s social status, Susan’s naiveté, and the void Kane felt which was left by a life which he had never been allowed to have.
Emily Monroe Norton’s social status made her the perfect wife for Kane. She was the personification of the decisions that Kane was expected to make. Kane was expected to marry well, have a family, and continue to live the privileged life. He was under constant public scrutiny because he was a popular public figure. The fact that he married the President’s niece, the closest a democratic society can get to royalty, made him even more of a public figure. Both social statuses combined to make the couple larger than life. Even though the honeymoon was clearly over soon after the marriage, as was evident by the fact that he spent more time at the newspaper than he did with his bride, he stayed married to her because that was what he was expected to do. (It is interesting how this continues to be an issue in society; it is one of the many points made in the film that makes the story timeless.) He could have left her as soon as he had met Susan, but that would cause a scandal which he was not prepared to manage.
Susan was naïve; she professed to be so from the moment she was introduced. The fact that she did not know who Kane was allowed him to be whoever he wanted to be. In the scrutinized life that Kane led, it was a welcome change. Jedediah said it best when he said that Kane once described her as “a cross-section of the American people.” Susan was the personification of the life that Kane was never allowed to have: live simply, exist for the sake of existing, and live your life the way that you want to live it. In Kane’s mind, this is what real people did; this is what Kane wanted to do. In going to Susan, he could escape into his own world where he was not a rich and famous man, but simply a man who was important to a woman. He was not important to her because of his money, but because he would listen to her, give her encouragement, and express the feeling that she could do whatever she wanted to do if only she wanted it enough. He could never have done this with Emily.
As a child, Kane lost the only life he knew as soon as the money came in. The fact that the film portrays “Rosebud” as his sled does not mean he longed for his sled, nor does it necessarily indicate that he longed for a simpler time in his life. What Kane longed for was a life he was only allowed to taste, never to have. Ironically, even though Kane had millions of dollars and was afforded every opportunity in the world, he longed for the values of a simpler life. Interestingly enough, however, when he made the choice to leave Emily, he did not opt to abandon his fortune and live a simple life with Susan. Instead, he drew Susan into the only world he knew- his world- and expected her to love him on his “own terms”. He hoped to buy Susan’s love, for Kane neither knew how to love nor how to receive it. He continued to spend his money, and tried to buy objects to physically fill the emotional void left by the fact that he could never have a simple life. Moreover, he built Susan a castle in which to live, in the hopes that he could treat her like one of his Venus statues. Only when Susan left and did something that was not “according to his plan” did he realize that every action he had taken in his life was narcissistic. For this, he blamed this thought: had he not been ripped away from the life he could have had, perhaps he would have been able to receive the character-building that being impoverished may have given him. Kane’s money and upbringing robbed him, not of his ability to love, but of his ability to learn how to love.
It would have been just as easy for Mankiewicz and Welles to portray Emily as the unpleasant antagonist as it would have been to portray Susan as dim-witted. They did neither, because that was not what the story was ultimately about. The antagonist in the story was not Emily or Susan; it was society. Therefore, the writers allowed the audience to believe Kane could leave Emily. At the same time, they showed that choosing Susan was not much of a change for him. The antagonist remained the same, and it was one which all of the money in the world could not allow Kane to escape, no matter which decision he made.
posted by Susan @ 11:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home