Classic movie that wasn't what I thought

Rating: 10/10 (19 January 2019)

Before watching this movie I only knew of it from a reference in the episode in season 6, episode 5, where Sideshow Bob becomes Mayor. The 10+ minute intro that is a newsreel sets up a dual story, one in the "present" (1941) of a reporter trying to figure out what Rosebud means and snapshots of Kane's life, a bit like one's memory. This is especially relevant with people talking of "fake news" today as Kane goes through life buoyed by a paper that literally prints fake news. Orson Welles carries the movie as Charles Foster Kane, the wealthy newspaper publisher whom doesn't care about anyone else but himself. The ending of the movie, with the meaning of Rosebud clear to the viewer but not found by the reporter is gone, almost like it dies with Kane. This movie was detested by William Randolph Hearst as it is based loosely on his life.
There is more to say about this movie than one paragraph. For one, this movie is relatively compelling drama which pulls you in. Of course Orson Welles as Kane does a great job, showing his ruthlessness to dominate over others, but I also think that Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane (Kane's second wife) and Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane (Kane's first wife) play important roles as well. The focus on the press a bit resembles other movies of the era like The Power of the Press (1930), Mr. Deeds Comes to Town (1936), Platinum Blonde (1931) and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1938) to name two I can think of off the top of my head. I could name the other actors as well, but the performances of Welles, Comingore, and Warrick are the most striking in my opinion, although others undoubtedly played their part.
The political themes for this film are obvious. Some critics have said that this film reflects the reflects "the battle between intervention and isolationism" waged in the U.S. especially since it was released six months before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and that Kane's one fate of "wealthy and lonely, surrounded by the detritus of European culture and history" is the fate of "isolationism" (which should more accurately be called non-interventionism). I think that is a valid point, but I also think other critics are right to point out that this film focuses on manipulation, by mass media, of public opinion, and of the political process. In that way, this movie almost foresees films like Network in 1976, the pinnacle of mass media manipulation just to get a better rating-share to bring more profits to "uneasy" stockholders whom believe the world is a business.
With that, my review comes to an end, with what I have said so far justifying a rating on this film of a 10 out of 10.