A Different Take on Citizen Kane

Rating: Null/10 (12 December 2004)

I have only watched Citizen Kane once, but I can already understand why so many people consider it a great movie. I am not speaking of the technical aspects of the movie, but of the actual story and the many layers to the story.
There is the first layer of the story which has received the most attention.
This layer is the story of Charles Kane, a wealthy tycoon who ruthlessly used his wealth and power to control and gain the affections of others. I think much has already been said about this layer so I will not explore it further.
To me the true beauty of this movie is the great deal of mystery that surrounds Charles Foster Kane. The fact that the story of Kane is told by others adds a great deal of complexity to the movie. Many of the commentaries I have read on CK, seem to believe that the focus of the movie was Kane and that the other characters are there as windows through which we can view Kane. Unfortunately, after having seen movies like the Usual Suspects and Memento, I have a great deal of skepticism regarding events relayed to the viewer by a character in the movie. As we saw in Usual Suspects, such accounts may simply be utter fabrication, or as in Memento, they may be so clouded in self deception that they bare little resemblance to the actual truth. I believe that in considering Kane one must consider the characters who told the life of Kane. Those who give the harshest portrayal of Kane deserve the most scrutiny. At first glance is may seem that there is little information given about these characters, but almost every scene with a supporting character sheds light into that character's nature.
Perhaps the most damaging account of Kane is given by Leland. However, one most remember a few things about this 'honorable' character. First through another character we first learn that Leland is an aristocrat who has lost all his wealth. We then watch as through much of the first part of the movie Kane satisfies his every whim and need. During this period we do not here him complain about Kane's cruel nature. It is not until Kane is humiliated in his bid for the Governorship, that Leland decides that he no longer needs Kane's friendship. But instead of resigning in protest, he asks to be transferred elsewhere. Just when his supposed friend needs him the most, Leland abandons him but still expects to be financially supported by him. In fact, it is rather difficult to pinpoint moments where Leland acts as a true friend towards Kane. Many of Leland's comments and actions reveal him to be a very selfish man who harbors a great deal of jealousy and resentment towards Kane. Thus Leland's account of Kane is hardly an objective accurate portrayal of the man.
I think an examination of many of the other portrayals of Kane, by an analysis of the characters giving the accounts will yield much deeper insights into the movie. To me this movie has some similarities to Lermatov's 'A Hero of Our Time'. At first glance both stories appear to about deeply flawed men. However, the true theme of both stories is an indictment of the society and individuals that destroyed the potential greatness in these men. Kane's utterance of 'Rosebud' at the end of the movie is a manifestation of his desire for a different type of society, one that nurtures people through love and friendship, as opposed to one that worships money and power.