Talk:Citizen Kane

message: I'm unsure why The Gnome has chosen to start an RfC here, at Citizen Kane, rather than at Hearst Castle, but I'll post my comments in both for ease.
:The disagreement between us arose over the use of the word “satirized” in the fourth paragraph of the lead of the Hearst Castle article. The Gnome suggests “evoked” would be more appropriate. My thinking regarding the use of the word goes something like:
:* Multiple RS describe Citizen Kane as a satire, e.g. []
:* They do so because CK does satirize Hearst/Kane, and his wife/mistress Susan/Marion, amongst others. Hearst’s avarice/Davies’ alcoholism are obvious instances. It also accounts for Hearst’s reaction to the film;
:* "Evoking", The Gnome's preferred term, has a rather different, and more benign, meaning;
:* I haven't attempted any major analysis of the film in the Hearst Castle article, but have referenced it in relation to Hearst and his life at the house. I do not understand The Gnome's suggestion that I have sought to "denote" the film as a satire, what I have actually done is say that, in the film, Welles satirises Hearst. I have no wish to alter the coverage of the film given in this article, and have no issue with the description used here, a "drama film";
:* I do note, however, that this article uses the term in question: "The News on the March sequence that begins the film satirizes the journalistic style of The March of Time" (my emphasis);
:* The Gnome appears to take the view that satire is a cheap/debased genre, “merely a satire”. It actually has a long and impressive pedigree, going back to classical texts.
Very pleased of course to discuss and see if a consensus can be reached. Although I would reiterate, I haven't made, and don't propose to make, any change to this article. KJP1 (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The obvious reason the talk page of the film Citizen Kane has been chosen for the RfC is that the RfC concerns the nature and assessment of the film  - and not the Hearst Castle at all. That's just to respond to the question posed by  KJP1 at the beginning of their comment. For more on my view, I'll be posting here separately. -The Gnome (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  - I’m afraid I am finding your comments increasingly incomprehensible. We disagreed on one word in the lead to the article on Hearst Castle. You’ve now raised an RfC on this article, Citizen Kane, But I’ve made no comment on, or amendment to this article and don’t intend to. It is not at all “obvious” to me what you are wanting to achieve by this RfC. If it’s an amendment to this article, nothing’s been changed. If it’s an alteration to Hearst Castle, why are we having a discussion here? KJP1 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from KJP1

message: I think that the standard definition of satire,
"the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."
doesn't really apply to Citizen Kane. I've seen the movie at least a half-dozen times, and I've never found it to be humorous. Now, Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator, that's satire pretty much at its finest. CK is a story so told as to not beat you over the head with its metaphors or comparisons to the politics at the time. I think that, as times move on, some of the relevancy to the current events of the time in which the film was made is lost or at the very least, loses some of its satirical (or humorous) value. Maybe its an unfair comparison, but there is more overt satire in Popeye WW2-era cartoons.
I can clearly see the satire in Popeye, wielded as it is like a funny hammer. With CK, I see the story, not the satire. That said, that is an opinion that I'm bringing to the discussion here, just as users KJP1 and The Gnome are bringing their own personal interpretations of the definition of satire here.
As always, the solution here is going to hinge on the number and quality of Reliable Sources. While the relevancy of sources changes over time (there is a reason why Hedy Lemarr is no longer considered to be the most beautiful woman to appear in film), Wikpedia works because it takes a rather strict stance on the use of sources over personal preference. We have sources that call Citizen Kane satirical, therefore, it is to be noted that it is satire. The reader will decide for themselves if the film is satirical to them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Very much appreciate the input and it’s helpful to have a range of views. As an aside, this suggests that Welles certainly saw comedic aspects to the film. For me, and I’ve seen it about as many times as you, there are some very humorous aspects to it. And personally, I think it retains a startling relevance, 80-odd years on. Murdoch, Succession, Trump? But you’re right; these are opinions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Jack Sebastian 

message: I've always supported the notion of Wikipedia as reflecting sources rather than arbitrary input. It is an attribute that keeps the project from deteriorating into a ideological battleground, directly and indirectly. </br>  
With this clarifying statement out of the way, I should think it'd be obvious that my disagreement about characterizing Citizen Kane as a "satire" is not based in the slightest on my personal opinion on the film, an opinion which I did not divulge at any time. I happen to have read in my time a rather significant amount of literature on film, including film criticism, and thus I happen to be able to recall and invoke sources in support of my disagreement. A task I honestly did not believe I'd ever undertake since there is a veritable avalanche of texts about Kane in which the film's main characteristic is never satire. This is actually close to a "the sky is blue" kind of statement, in the field of film studies, one that's practically self-evident. But there will always be objections, even to the self-evident! Possibly not an altogether bad thing. </br>
KJP1 continues to believe that Kane is satire ("Multiple RS describe Citizen Kane as a satire"). A quick forensics on KJP1's  sources actually dispenses rather easily with that belief. What comes off the texts is the fact that the film contains satire but it is far from being a satirical film:</br>
The Sydney Morning Herald review says "Kane is a satire on Hearst himself" but note absence of italics - that's about the character of Kane and not the film. The film, the review, says, is "a journey from innocence to corruption through the ages", "equal parts tragedy and tawdry political opera", "a comedy shot like a horror movie", and so on. (That review is really about the grand lie perpetrated by Pauline Kael, and brought to screen by David Fincher, but Kane gets its share of light.) The Criterion piece contains the word "satire" but, again, the notion is used about the person and not the film ("Kane gives us the definitive satire of a certain American type, it also depicts that type with a fascinating ambivalence, using Freud as much as Marx to understand him"), a film that it describes as "an explosion of form, combining effects and techniques and stylistic flourishes from the preceding decades of film-making (and coming up with several of its own), all in service to an audience-unfriendly downer of a story that offers no uplifting messages or clear moral vision...the peak achievement of Hollywood’s golden age and a rebuke of it — the work of an auteur thumbing his nose at the studio system even as he took full advantage of the resources it provided him". Hardly a satire, this.</br>
What's accessible from the DeGruyter blog has Kane  as the "the first American mainstream art film," "a coy  investigation into the life career, and politics of Hearst, and so to dramatize the relations among capitalism, power, sex,  and modern mass media in America." No "satire" in sight. The Columbia Daily Tribune text contains no "satire" either. Catherine Benamou's book Citizen Kane offers us one more text where the author refers to "the perceived cinematic satire of Hearst and his paramour Marion Davies" and goes on to shower t
the film itself with major accolades for its artistic and technical achievements, nowhere denoting it as a "satire."</br>
And we come to the infamous Pauline Kael The New Yorker 1971 article on the film. She did not like it. (It is "is closer to comedy than to tragedy". "The mystery in Kane is largely fake". "It isn’t a work of special depth or a work of subtle beauty. It is a shallow work." Etc.) In any case, Kael used the word "satire" in her article twice. The first time to explain why Hollywood became "suspicious" of Welles: "When you write straight reporting about the motion-picture business, you’re writing satire. Motion-picture executives prefer to do business with men whose values they understand. As soon as movies became Welles’ passion, and he was willing to work on any terms, he was finished in the big studios—they didn’t trust him." And the second is to put the film in context in the tradition of vaudevillian comedy: "To use the conventional schoolbook explanations for greatness, and pretend that [the film]'s profound, is to miss what makes it such an American triumph—that it manages to create something aesthetically exciting and durable out of the playfulness of American muckraking satire."   
</br>Roger Ebert used the word "parody" to denote Welles' use of the concept of the March of Time in Kane. But satire is closely related to but not equal to parody. And Ebert does not make any claim for either "satire" or "parody" for the film itself, in total.</br>
In fact, the only source that has been unearthed claiming straight forwardly that "Kane is primarily a satire" is this personal blog created by a rather unknown "film writer" who writes for the  magazine Reverse shot. Should we take this level of obscurity in as evidence? Are even the totality of sources offered strong enough to have us change Kane from drama to satire? I think not. -The Gnome (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting to one side the fact that I have never suggested we change anything in this article, as it's been dealt with very fully in User:Snow Rise's comments below; you write: "What comes off the texts is the fact that the film contains satire". As you acknowledge this, I'm more puzzled than ever as to the point you are trying to make. If I had written, in this article or elsewhere, something like,  "Citizen Kane is a satire and nothing but a satire", you may just about have had a point. But what I wrote was; "Hearst, his castle and his lifestyle were satirized by Orson Welles in his 1941 film Citizen Kane" and you have acknowledged that is exactly what the sources say. And, had your "forensic" been a little less "quick", you'd have seen more instances. You claim, for example, that the Columbia Daily News article "contains no satire". How about the last line of its 15th paragraph: "Welles, in his satire, wanted Hearst to see that his demise was staring at him from the screen"? Or the De Gruyter article: "In its disguised satire of Hearst, Citizen Kane fragments, objectifies, and, so to speak, psychoanalyzes the prototypical biopic subject of the 1930s"? KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from The Gnome

message: The biopic “Mank” shows Mankiewicz as the sole author of the script. This article suggests Wells was the principal author.  Shouldn’t there be some discussion of this apparent conflict in this article? 98.183.25.236 (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: From Mank#Writing  DonQuixote (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And it’s worth noting that the question of authorship is already discussed in the Screenplay section, as well as in Screenplay for Citizen Kane. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authorship