the predominant interpretation of Rosebud?

[Colmena]

Is it possible to generalize about the predominant interpretation of Rosebud?

A potent symbol, that serves to fit the pieces of the Kane puzzle together?

Or just a gimmick, a "way to get off" (OW), a cliched closing gesture towards lost childhood happiness, whose meaning is opaque or unstable, which does not bring us to any larger grasp of what Kane the man and/or CK the movie are about?

I'm not asking what your individual assessments might be, but rather looking for the larger question: When chatting about or reading about CK & Rosebud, what is the standard reaction? Appreciative or debunking?

Or perhaps neither side predominates?

My impression is that the negative reaction predominates (encouraged by those famous debunking quotes from OW himself), but I haven't chatted or read much about CK, so my evidence is narrow.

If this topic has been covered already, please direct me to it.

-Colmena

[Le Chiffre]

Interesting question. I don't think there is a predominant interpretation of Rosebud; it's power comes in large part from it's ambiguity. I like the comment by Paul Mandell on the 1984 Image LD of Kane, concerning the dismissal of Rosebud as "dollar-book Freud""

"Dollar-book Freud? Perhaps, but no movie ever ended on a more gut-grabbing note."

Whatever it's actual meaning, I think it's become more or less accepted by many as a powerful expression of the idea that material possessions don't mean a thing in the end.

[Glenn Anders]

I agree, Mike.

One of the problems with CITIZEN KANE, its reputation, and "rosebud," is that we are now (understandably) in a much more cynical, analytical Age, which has not only seen it all, but can see it all again at any our of the day or night, often in clips, parts, and documentaries. To see CITIZEN KANE, or any aspiring work of great art, from beginning to end, with a fresh eye, becomes more and more difficult. When I first saw CITIZEN KANE in the late Spring of 1941, most Americans, despite the Great Depression, still admired the Charles Foster Kane's of our national life. Some of the Robber Barons, or at least their sons and daughters, were still endlessly praised in the American Weekly's, Tabloids, or "New Journalism" (Time Magazine, etc) of the day. Now, we may tend to say, "Yeah, so what! Of course, Charlie Kane was a bum. What do you expect?"

The misplaced admiration and foolish worship given such people has now been transferred, with a large dose of bitter envy, to "celebrities" and figures from "reality shows." Look at the deluge of mostly dishonest analysis devoted to Whitney Houston, now that she is dead . . . . Even a truly fraudulent, dishonored figure like the late Andrew Breitbart is now being given almost universal encomiums of false grief, etc, by just about all the media from Fox to CNN: "I may have disagreed with his methods, but he was really such a NICE GUY . . ."

Et cetera . . . et cetera.

What can they be thinking of!

I wonder what Andrew Breitbart's "rosebud" was? No doubt, he had one, as almost all of us have. As opposed to the mystery of Charles Foster Kane, we may just find out!

Glenn

[Roger Ryan]

While I believe "Rosebud" is a beautifully conceived way to get into CITIZEN KANE, I have to think that other aspects of the script and film become more poignant or involving after several viewings. I've lived with this film for 36 years, so when I return to it now I find that little moments like Kane's barely muttered "yes.." in response to Susan Alexander's rhetorical question "You know what mothers are like?" carry a lot more weight than Kane's dying word. If Kane's life could be summed up in one word, I don't think KANE would be a very deep film. I don't consider "Rosebud" to be insignificant, but the "No Trespassing" sign, the shredding of the Declaration of Principles, the doll resting on Susan's bed at Xanadu and the artwork never removed from packing crates among a myriad of other details are equally important. I would even say that the name of the sled that Thatcher gives to Kane on Christmas is of equal import to the film.

As Mike noted, I don't think there is a predominant interpretation of "Rosebud"...apart from it being a piece in the puzzle.

[Colmena]

Thanks for these replies. I've been away from this computer, and so lost my ability to sign into Wellesnet, which is why it's taken me so long to reply.

As I said,
It seems to me that the predominant interpretation is the dismissive one.

For evidence of this, as well as one instance of the opposite, I see that Callow writes of Tangye Lean as "one of the few who accepted Rosebud as entirely successful." (566)
And quotes him: "If you accept the discovery of Rosebud as something more significant than an O. Henry ending, a vast pattern of interrelated human themes becomes clear."

I need to track down the context for this quote, which in not located by Callow, and does not seem to be in the TL essay in "Focus on CK."

For me, the true meaning of R is not that which is disclosed to us when we first arrive burning sled, but meaning which is disclosed to Kane, when he comes upon the snow globe, after smashing up Susan's room. Not the meaning of Rosebud, the sled, but the meaning of "Rosebud!", Kane's last word.

Think how different this movie would have been if Kane had found the sled with the other items from his mother's estate, in one of the Attics of Xanadu. And we saw him carrying the sled, in a stupor, past the servants. Then the nurse who comes into his room after he dies would know the identity of Rosebud, instead of finding the puddle of broken glass etc.

[Colmena]

Roger,

Thanks for your comment and alternate points of meaning, all of which I'm happy to concur with.

I find both that CK is a "deep film" and that one word... well, doesn't don't sum it all up, since there is so much to say, but applies globally to Kane's life: Loss. This is the summary that Bernstein arrives at at the end of his retrospective. And on this basis he predicts, correctly, that Rosebud will prove to be one more loss. (Then Leland also summarizes Kane's life as being about loss, the loss of love.) Thompson reiterates both of Bernstein's points at the end-- while he proclaims (like you) that there is no one word, ironically.

Similarly, Welles summarizes CK as a "failure story," as opposed to a "success story." But I find that "loss" captures this tale better than failure.

The burning sled hits hard (for us whom it hits) not simply because it is one more loss in a life of "losing almost everything," but because it is the original loss, one that happened so long ago, that we've forgotten about, that Kane has never surmounted, that he is brought back to, at the end.

[Glenn Anders]

Colmena: I've been having trouble logging on, too.

You have a vivid imagination. I wouldn't want to run some of your alternate scenes past an audience in Pomona!

But seriously, theatrical as it may be, "rosebud" is integral to the meaning of CITIZEN KANE, not solely important, but laced throughout the fabric of the entire film. Welles takes care to show us the globe sitting unobtrusively several times. And I don't think anyone has mentioned the little speech Charlie Kane gives to Susan Alexander the night he meets her. He is in a lower middle-class section of the city, and she asks what brought him there. He tells her that has been visiting a warehouse where some of his mother's things are stored. If we want to know how he recovered his beloved sled, it's in this context we have to look. Surely, for Charlie Kane, this is serendipity. On the evening he has gone through the possessions of the mother he lost, he has met and been taken in by a quiet, caring young woman. She, in turn, has been suffering from a bad toothache. He does boyish things, making finger shadow pictures on the wall, to amuse her, to take her mind of her pain and his own. The pattern of mutual dependence rises almost from that beginning. She sings; he praises her singing. But for Charles Foster Kane, Susan Alexander represents his own long given up ambitions, and therefore, his new love must not be just a childlike singer but a grand diva. And so, that tragic strand of Charlie Kane's life plays out -- again, if I'm correct, from a sighting of a sled called "Rosebud."

Simon Callow tends, in the first volume of his biography, to go overboard in debunking Welles' legend and myth, especially in connection with CITIZEN KANE. It seems to me that, without endlessly analyzing the significance of "Rosebud," we simply let the film wash over us, as we should do with an artistic work, the symbol of the sled called "Rosebud" is integral to the meaning of Charles Foster Kane's life, to the meaning of the film, really, to the meaning of our own lives. That's why CITIZEN KANE is one to the greatest works in Cinema.

Having seen CITIZEN KANE dozens of times, knowing the central image which is "Rosebud," when I see that sled thrown on the fire, tears start from my eyes. That experience is rare in my experience in connection with any work of art. The meaning of CITIZEN KANE is primal, visceral, and pretty much eternal.

As Mike suggests, whoever we are, we eventually go up in smoke, as do most of our material possessions.

Glenn

[Colmena]

Glenn,

I agree with you completely about the link between Rosebud and meeting Susan, when Kane is on his way to the Warehouse. And I find that this link is rarely noted.

I've been poking through both volumes by Callow, and (so far) I don't see him as essentially a debunker of OW. Maybe I haven't hit this yet. He is wonderfully appreciative of Welles' new way of making a movie in Fortaleza. p134f in Hello Americans. Do read this, if you haven't already.

And speaking of debunkers, I'm now reading both of the Higham books, on CK. The first is good on the music in CK. And he identifies the backdrop for the Everglades picnic as "Son of Kong."
Then in the second there's reference to a major crossing of swords that he got into with Herrmann...! And his jacket blurb he identifies himself as a character in "Wind"-- which is pretty nervy of him.

Is there a stream here for discussions of writings on OW?

[Roger Ryan]

I've been poking through both volumes by Callow, and (so far) I don't see him as essentially a debunker of OW. Maybe I haven't hit this yet. He is wonderfully appreciative of Welles' new way of making a movie in Fortaleza. p134f in Hello Americans. Do read this, if you haven't already.

Glenn is referring specifically to how Callow writes of Welles in his first volume - THE ROAD TO XANADU. Judging from the two volumes, it becomes clear that Callow becomes more appreciative of Welles' talents and choices the more he researches the man. After reading HELLO AMERICANS, one almost forgets that Callow displayed a somewhat more dismissive tone in the first book. Should be interesting to see what the tone is like in the third and final volume. At any rate, Callow is considerably less dismissive than Higham!

Before KANE was released on Laser Disc and DVD (allowing us to advance the film frame-by-frame), I wonder how many viewers were able to make out the name of the sled that Thatcher gives to young Kane to replace "Rosebud"? Since I alluded to it above, I won't keep it a secret in this thread: the sled is called "The Crusader" - what a perfect companion for "Rosebud" and a fine symbol for how Kane attempts to compensate for his loss.

[Colmena]

Roger,

Could you please say more about how
"the name of the sled that Thatcher gives to Kane on Christmas is of equal import to the film."?

Or if you've said this elsewhere, could you direct me to it.

Your point is that Kane assumes the role of a crusader, in compensation for losing his original sled?

That doesn't work for me because the new sled is picked out by Thatcher, and young Charles looks truly annoyed by it this gesture. As if it is inadequate compensation for that which was taken from him.

Colmena

[Colmena]

On the topic of losses, the massive loss which is never registered in this movie... is Kane's loss of his only child. To lose a child is crushing. If I'd been watching CK for the first time, had arrived at the end of the movie, which was then stopped... and then we had to guess what loss will "Rosebud" turn out to be.... Well, I wouldn't have guessed the sled, or a woman on a ferry... I would have guessed: losing Junior. Not Kane losing his childhood, etc. but the complete extinction of another childhood, etc.

(I say this as a parent, & not one who has lost a child, thank goodness.)

[Roger Ryan]

On the topic of losses, the massive loss which is never registered in this movie... is Kane's loss of his only child. To lose a child is crushing. If I'd been watching CK for the first time, had arrived at the end of the movie, which was then stopped... and then we had to guess what loss will "Rosebud" turn out to be.... Well, I wouldn't have guessed the sled, or a woman on a ferry... I would have guessed: losing Junior. Not Kane losing his childhood, etc. but the complete extinction of another childhood, etc.

(I say this as a parent, & not one who has lost a child, thank goodness.)

In the early drafts of the screenplay, Kane's son lives to become a young adult radical who is killed by police during a terrorist incident. I suspect that Welles felt this event would change the dramatic focus of the story (a more portent loss than the car accident which is dismissed quickly in the newsreel alone) and removed it to make the story more manageable. Some of the same decision-making went into the removal of Kane having a chance meeting with his father later in life and a subplot commenting on Kane's possible involvement in the attempted assassination of the president.

You're correct that the death of his only son should register more strongly on Kane, but it's clear that Welles did not want this to be a major part of Kane's story. We can imply that his son's death affects him in some way, but by the time Emily and Junior perish, Kane has moved on in his life...still trying to find that connection that would have made him a "great man".

As to the sled that Thatcher gives Kane: the symbol is more for us, the audience, than it is for Kane the boy. "The Crusader" sled replacing the "Rosebud" one foreshadows the choices the adult Kane will make, basically an attempt to put the world right in response to his world being upended. An important irony of the film is that while Kane supposedly despises Thatcher and believes his choices are in direct opposition to what Thatcher wants, he could only become the manipulative megalomaniac he does by becoming part of Thatcher's world. Kane resents Thatcher, but ends up emulating him at the same time.

[Colmena]

Thanks for replying to my two points, Roger.

In regard to Kane's conflict with Thatcher, his signing over of the paper to Thatcher is a loss that (unlike his losses re politics, his marriages, Susan's opera career & Xanadu) he did not bring about, do to himself. Like the original loss of the sled, it's external, done to him: a product of the crash & depression. Of course one could say that K didn't anticipate the crash properly, and so this is his responsibility, but few did see the writing on the wall.

And then the big question at that point is whether Kane's failure to achieve greatness is his responsibility, or done to him (as he suggests) by virtue of being granted so much wealth.

[Le Chiffre]

I think the part about Kane’s son being part of a terrorist organization was an allusion to the “Christian Front”, a pro-fascist organization centered around Father Charles Coughlin, a radio demagogue who had recently been kicked off the air. As the KANE screenplay was being written in 1940, the Christian Front had been found by the FBI to be stockpiling weapons in New York City for use in future terrorist activities. By making Kane’s son part of this organization, the screenplay creates a symbolic connection of sorts between Hearst and Father Coughlin, and thus, between Hearst and fascism. My guess is that Mankewicz put the terrorist stuff into the screenplay, and Welles took it out, since most of the film’s scholars I’ve read seem to agree that Welles’s contribution to the KANE screenplay consisted mainly in “softening” the Hearst connection. Welles probably felt that CITIZEN KANE was a potato that was hot enough already.

[Colmena]

Getting back to this topic,
so far, the only celebrity cineaste who advances a positive interpretation of Rosebud (that I have come upon)is Sarris, who identifies it as the "beating heart" of CK.

On the other hand, I would classify Thompson, Kael, Ebert, Bogdanavich, Carringer as debunkers. And of course, Welles himself. With Carringer, author of the most important monograph on CK, as the most aggressive debunker of the lot.

In a prior post on this I wrote "Callow writes of Tangye Lean as "one of the few who accepted Rosebud as entirely successful." (566) And quotes him: "If you accept the discovery of Rosebud as something more significant than an O. Henry ending, a vast pattern of interrelated human themes becomes clear." I need to track down the context for this quote, which in not located by Callow, and does not seem to be in the TL essay in "Focus on CK."

Well, it does come from his 1941 review, and can be found on p62 of "Focus on CK"

The review ends by comparing CK to Proust, in its complexity and greatness: "Life is like this, and so is Proust's novel, but not up to now, Hollywood. Orson Welles is 26, with say forty years of work ahead of him."

But... then we have the debacle of 1942!