CITIZEN KANE & PHILOSOPHY
Posted by Dave LeBoeuf on December 12, 2000 at 08:24:43:
I had mentioned this back in May, when it was tentative, but I’ll be presenting an abridged version of a paper entitled "Citizen Kant: Themes of Consciousness and Cognition in Citizen Kane" at the American Philosophical Association’s annual eastern division meeting in NYC on 12/27 in a 7 pm session. Details of the 3-day conference, which takes place at the New York Hilton, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, can be found at the APA’s web-site at http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/divisions/e ... index.html
A longer version of the paper is slated to be included in a volume on ‘Epistemology and Film’. The paper may only appeal to those with an interest in philosophy, but I believe the film effectively raises many interesting concepts and ‘theories’ about personal identity and the nature of consciousness. In short, I point out structural similarities the film shares with Immanuel Kant's epistemology (theory of knowledge). The film’s narrative structure, characterization, and manipulation of space and time acts as a correlative to Kant's "transcendental idealism", itself an attempt to bridge the impasse between Hume's empiricist scepticism (wherein the phenomena of consciousness or 'sense of self' is construed as no more than a rapid series of sensory stimuli) and Descartes' rationalist "cogito" argument (wherein the senses, which can deceive, cannot be trusted and the 'thinking self' is a kind of 'substance' which acts as the ultimate source of all genuine knowledge). In short, I argue that the "News on the March" segment represents the Humean model of consciousness (of the 'self' as no more than the sum of observable phenomena), Thompson's pursuit of the meaning of 'Rosebud' parallels Descartes' (and most of western science's) failed attempts to find the 'essence' of personal identity (or 'self-hood'), and the film's omniscient opening and closing scenes represent Kant's idea of the "noumena" with respect to consciousness (that is, the "transcendental unity of apperception" which Kant deduces 'must' exist if we are to account for our continuous senses of self across time and space).
An initital draft version of the paper is linked from -- http://www.gis.net/~d13/welles/welles.htm
Dave LeBoeuf
*
Jez:
These ideas are interesting... it's nice to know that others see Welles films as being philosophically rich as well... every line, every scene, every piece of music jolts the mind from place to place and idea to idea...
I don't necessarily think Welles would have had Kant/Hume/Descartes in mind when he made the films, and in this sense he can be considered a philosopher of considerable stature himself - after all, it's all about (re)presentation isn't it?! By this I mean that Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, Derrida etc have all dealt with epistemology in different styles but with a constant thread running through the middle, and I think Welles also sits on this thread, using film/fiction (or art/truth) as his medium.
I think that the "Declaration of Principles" in Kane is central to the movement of the Kane identity: history/character is recorded, Kane deviates from it... why? How? Can we know?
*
Al Schwartz:
...Plato, Kant, Nietzsche, Derrida etc have all dealt with epistemology in different styles but with a constant thread running through the middle, and I think Welles also sits on this thread, using film/fiction (or art/truth) as his medium.
If Welles had such a thorough comprehension of Shakespeare it would be a short step to Kant (almost like "Kane"), and Nietzche.
One of the projects Welles reportedly considered as a follow up to KANE was a life of Beethoven, who was considered by many historians as the "philosopher" of music, and who was heavily influenced by Kant's "philosophy of duty", in which doing one's duty is more important than making other's happy.
As a youth, Welles also is said to have written a scholarly essay on Nietsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra. If true, I wonder if this essay still exists. It could shed a lot of light on his philosophical outlook. Welles was definitely one who struggled with the "world's riddle".
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Zarathustra another word for Zoroaster? And don't the Zorastrians believe in the concept of the "doppelganger", or "evil twin"? The constant struggle between our two characters or natures would make any notion of a "fixed identity" impossible. Stevenson's "Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde" explores this theme as well, and Arkadin's "scorpion/frog" story seems to point to this good vs. evil, fate vs. free will struggle.
One critic described Welles's movies as "sinister puppet shows". Could his faustian power figures like KANE, ARKADIN, QUINLAN etc. be doppelgangers of himself? Excuse my rambling thoughts, I'm not pretending to have any answers here, just playing with a jigsaw puzzle...
*
Jez:
Of course, while these characters are born of his own character, Welles constantly reminded those who asked that they WERE NOT biographies, and how right he is!
I don't want to upset people by returning again to Milan Kundera, but there is a brief section in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" in which he discusses the connection of his characters to himself, concluding that (rather than being autobiographical) they are in fact studies of the many POSSIBILITIES that could have affected his own life. They stem from him, but they are not him. I think this is very close to Welles' style.
*
Posted by Dave LeBoeuf on December 14, 2000 at 19:27:04:
In Reply to: Citizen Kane & Philosophy posted by Dave LeBoeuf on December 12, 2000 at 08:24:43:
I don't believe that Welles had Descartes/Hume/Kant in mind when he made Citizen Kane either. While there is little evidence that anyone involved in the making of Citizen Kane knowingly attempted to infuse the film with epistemological reflections, I believe that most 'timeless' art which deeply resonates with people does so because it taps into potentially universal 'truths', which might otherwise only be reached via a complicated systematic philosophical endeavor.
While I am much more aligned with 'analytic' philosophy, I do believe that Jung's theory of the collective unconscious (as he applied it to the world of the artist) gets to the heart of the matter. Echoing the general sentiments of S.T. Coleridge on the issue (and prefiguring today's cognitive approach to film studies), Jung describes the artistic process as "a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument… Whenever the creative force predominates, human life is ruled and moulded by the unconscious as against the active will, and the conscious ego is swept along on a subterranean current, being nothing more than a helpless observer of events."
With this in mind, I think many artists are not fully 'aware' of the power their work has in activating the audience's imaginations.
FWIW, here's John Houseman 's generous but brutally honest (?) presentation of Orson Welles' "intellectualism" --
"For all his undoubted intelligence, Welles was never an intellectual, in the theatre or out of it. He was a quick reactor, a brilliant improviser, a vivid visualizer, but he seldom cared to stop and think, and hardly ever gave his audiences time to do the same. In a way, the live theatre was his ideal medium, the perfect form for the prestidigitator's magic, since you never see exactly the same thing twice. It is surprising that he was later to make films which could stand up triumphantly to the most minute and frequent analysis… [Taylor, p. 30-31].
It's also worth noting that "F For Fake" contains some relatively sophisticated 'arguments' relevant to philosophical aesthetics and issues of what makes art 'art'.
Regarding Orson Welles' Nietzschean influence:
"At various periods in his youth he made a study of Nietzsche." [Naremore, p. 3].
Al Schwartz wrote: "As a youth, Welles also is said to have written a scholarly essay on Nietsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra." Where did you hear of this?
"Bright Lucifer", Welles' earliest original work (written when he was 18), was apparently very autobiographical and also echoed some rough Nietzschean themes. According to James Naremore, the main character, Eldred Brand, outwardly resembles Welles himself. Naremore (who has seen the script, itself not otherwise published) describes Brand as "a devotee of Nietzsche" (p. 5) and one who "models himself on the Devil" (p.
. It is interesting that Welles would go on to play the Clarence Darrow-like role in the film "Compulsion", a thinly-disguised version of the Leopold and Loeb murder case, wherein two precocious young men, under a Hitler-ized reading of Nietzsche (e.g., the superman is beyond moral codes of good and evil, yada yada yada), decide to commit murder for no other reason than as an 'experiment' to realize their perverted version of Nietzschean moral philosophy and also to demonstrate what they believe is their 'superior intellect' and ability to commmit such a crime without getting caught. There are Nietzschean themes in "Heart of Darkness" as well and the following excerpt of Kurtz dialogue from Welles' screenplay for a film version of Conrad's novel are illustrative:
KURTZ: I'm a great man, Marlow -- really great... The meek -- you and the rest of the millions -- the poor in spirit, I hate you -- but I know you for my betters -- without knowing why you are except that yours is the Kingdom of Heaven, except that you shall inherit the earth. Don't mistake me, I haven't gone moral on my death bed. I'm above morality. No. I've climbed higher than men and seen farther. I'm the first absolute dictator. The first complete success. I've known what others try to get… I won the game, but the winner loses too. He's all alone and he goes mad." [as quoted in Naremore, p. 144].
KURTZ: Understand this much -- Everything I've done up here has been done according to the method of my Government. Everything. There's a man now in Europe trying to do what I've done in this jungle. He will fail. In his madness, he thinks he can't fail-but he will. A brute can rule only brutes. Remember the meek, -- the meek. -- I'm a great man, Marlowe -- really great -- know the strength of the enemy -- its terrible weakness, the meek -- you and the rest of the millions -- the poor in spirit. I hate you -- but I know you for my betters -- without knowing why you are except that yours is the Kingdom of Heaven, except that you shall inherit the earth . . . . [From "Revised Estimating Script for Heart of Darkness," pp. 161-63, box 14, Welles collection, Lilly Library, as quoted in "Fiery Speech in a World of Shadows: Rosebud's Impact on Early Audiences", by Robin Bates with Scott Bates, in Perspectives on Citizen Kane, p. 313].
*
BRIGHT LUCIFER AND THE TWO KANES
: Jung describes the artistic process as "a kind of innate drive that seizes a human being and makes him its instrument… Whenever the creative force predominates, human life is ruled and moulded by the unconscious as against the active will, and the conscious ego is swept along on a subterranean current, being nothing more than a helpless observer of events."
Sounds almost like demonic posession, which seems to be a theme of BRIGHT LUCIFER, which I'm glad you mentioned. The three main characters in it are perhaps symbolic of the young Welles's rather disturbed psyche or maybe even his philosophy (Descartes/Hume/Kant?).
: With this in mind, I think many artists are not fully 'aware' of the power their work has in activating the audience's imaginations.
Perhaps because it's not entirely their work, but also the work of that which posesses them.
: Regarding Orson Welles' Nietzschean influence:
: "At various periods in his youth he made a study of Nietzsche." [Naremore, p. 3].
: Al Schwartz wrote: "As a youth, Welles also is said to have written a scholarly essay on Nietsche's Also Sprach Zarathustra."
Where did you hear of this?
Unfortunately, I can't recall offhand which book it was, and it may have even been the Naremore. But if Welles studied Nietsche, it's more than likely he studied Zarathustra.
By the way, your website - which is one of the most interesting Welles sites I've seen on the Web - has a link to the early KANE draft. I found this a fascinating read. The earlier draft seems to make more explicit that Charles Foster Kane (and Hearst) was a prototype for the fascist dictators - a man whose hypocritical leftism helped set the example for Hitler and Mussolini. I was wondering what your impressions might be on the differences between the two KANES?
*
Bob:
: I don't want to upset people by returning again to Milan Kundera, but there is a brief section in "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" in which he discusses the connection of his characters to himself, concluding that (rather than being autobiographical) they are in fact studies of the many POSSIBILITIES that could have affected his own life. They stem from him, but they are not him. I think this is very close to Welles' style.
Here's an excerpt from Jonathon Rosenbaum's review of Philip Kaufman's new movie about the Marquis De Sade, QUILLS:
"If (Kaufman) and Wright want to make hash of the entire Sade debate in order to show us a good time, why not?...who says entertainment has to be intellectually challenging? (By contrast, when I saw Kaufman's much-praised and equally sexy film adaptation of Milan Kundera's THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING in 1988, I couldn't get past how he'd perverted the novel, avoiding what Kundera had to say about kitsch and any aspect of Czech life Americans didn't already know about. Does this mean I value Kundera more than Sade? Maybe.)
