Characters
Charles Foster Kane
Charles Foster Kane (played by Orson Welles), the protagonist, is a complex and multifaceted individual whose life story unfolds through fragmented memories and unreliable narrators. The film refrains from offering a definitive interpretation, leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions about this enigmatic and contradictory character.
Kane's formative years are marked by a defining event: a harsh separation from his loving mother. Sent away to be raised by a wealthy banker, he loses the warmth and security of his childhood home. This event casts a long shadow, shaping his perception of the world and contributing to a sense of longing for a simpler past.
Emerging as a figure driven by ambition and ruthlessness, Kane utilizes his inherited wealth to acquire a struggling newspaper. He transforms it into a powerful platform through sensationalist tactics and biased reporting, demonstrating a willingness to manipulate the narrative for personal gain and power.
Despite his wealth and influence, Kane struggles to build meaningful connections. His marriage to Emily Norton, motivated by political ambition, lacks genuine affection. He later attempts to control the career and public image of Susan Alexander, showcasing his difficulty in forming genuine connections and leading to isolation and loneliness.
Following his public downfall, Kane retreats to his opulent estate, Xanadu. Surrounded by an array of seemingly valuable possessions, he remains a solitary figure, haunted by the unsolved mystery of "Rosebud." Xanadu becomes a physical manifestation of his internal conflict—a place of wealth and extravagance masking a profound sense of emptiness and longing.
The film concludes with the revelation of "Rosebud" as a young boy's sled. While the specific meaning remains open to interpretation, it can be seen as a symbol of Kane's lost childhood innocence. The separation from his mother and the subsequent loss of a secure and loving environment may have left an indelible mark on his psyche, shaping his desires and ultimately driving his actions throughout his life.
Jedediah Leland
Jedediah Leland (played by Joseph Cotten), a close friend and colleague of Charles Foster Kane, emerges as a complex counterpoint to the film's central figure. Through his actions and perspective, Leland serves as a moral compass, highlighting the contradictions and consequences of Kane's ambitions.
Leland and Kane meet in college, with Leland following Kane through various institutions due to their shared intellectual curiosity. Initially, Leland shares Kane's idealism about using the newspaper to champion social justice. However, their paths diverge as Kane prioritizes personal gain and influence over journalistic integrity.
Leland witnesses and often expresses concern about Kane's manipulative tactics, from sensationalized reporting to controlling the lives of those around him. He questions Kane's motivations, as evidenced by his skepticism towards the "Declaration of Principles" at the newspaper's inception. He expresses ethical reservations about their methods, eventually requesting a transfer to escape Kane's morally questionable practices.
Despite his criticisms, Leland remains loyal to Kane for a considerable time. He witnesses the disintegration of Kane's marriage and the public scandal surrounding his affair with Susan Alexander. He observes Kane's retreat into isolation at Xanadu, and his final words to Kane express a mixture of concern and unfulfilled hopes.
While Leland initially admires Kane's talent and ambition, their relationship becomes increasingly strained due to their conflicting values. Leland's unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity and genuine human connection stands in stark contrast to Kane's pursuit of power and control.
Leland's character development reflects on his capacity for personal growth. Unlike other characters who become disillusioned and leave Kane, Leland actively attempts to maintain his moral compass within the constraints of their partnership. His eventual departure from Kane's sphere of influence signifies his refusal to compromise his ethical principles.
The film concludes without fully resolving the dynamics between Leland and Kane. However, Leland's presence serves as a constant reminder of the human cost of Kane's relentless pursuit of power and his inability to build genuine connections. Through Leland's perspective, the audience grapples with the complexities of ambition and the importance of upholding moral values, offering a nuanced counterpoint to Kane's tragic downfall.
Susan Alexander Kane
Susan Alexander Kane (played by Dorothy Comingore) emerges as a complex character whose story intertwines with, but ultimately diverges from, Charles Foster Kane's. Her journey within the film reveals the challenges of navigating personal aspirations within the context of power dynamics and societal expectations.
Susan initially appears as a young woman with aspirations of becoming an opera singer. She meets Kane during a chance encounter and is unaware of his immense wealth and influence. Their relationship quickly blossoms, fueled by a shared sense of rebellion against societal norms.
However, Kane's controlling nature and obsession with shaping Susan into an operatic star, despite her lack of natural talent, soon become evident. He utilizes his resources to orchestrate her career, disregarding her own desires and artistic limitations. This manipulation fuels a sense of frustration and resentment within Susan, leading to a public performance that exposes her inadequacies and ultimately ruins her career.
The public scandal surrounding their relationship further highlights Susan's vulnerability within the power dynamics. Caught between Kane's ambition and her own aspirations, she becomes a pawn in his game, ultimately losing her sense of agency and suffering a humiliating public downfall.
Despite the challenges and manipulation she faces, Susan demonstrates moments of genuine affection and concern for Kane. She shows empathy toward him during his political campaign defeat and expresses concern for his well-being after the public scandal. However, her attempts to connect with him on an emotional level are often met with resistance due to his self-absorption and inability to relinquish control.
Ultimately, Susan chooses to leave Kane, recognizing the need to escape the stifling environment and the detrimental impact it has on her own identity and aspirations. Her departure signifies an act of self-preservation and a refusal to be solely defined by her association with Kane.
While the film primarily focuses on Kane's life story, Susan Alexander Kane plays a crucial role in highlighting the human cost of his relentless pursuit of power and control. Her journey underscores the complexities of navigating ambition and personal desires within unequal power structures, leaving the audience to contemplate the consequences of manipulation and the importance of asserting one's agency.
Mary Kane
Mary Kane (played by Agnes Moorehead), Charles Foster Kane's mother, appears briefly but plays a pivotal role in shaping his life. Though details about her are limited, her actions highlight the complexities of sacrifice and the lasting impact of early life experiences.
While the film portrays Mary Kane as having discovered a large sum of money through a gold mine, her choice to establish a trust with Mr. Thatcher and send Charles away to be raised by him remains unclear. This decision raises questions about the sacrifices parents make for their children and the potential consequences of such choices. Through her limited presence, Mary Kane serves as a constant reminder of the formative power of early experiences and the enduring impact of loss, even if its full extent remains open to interpretation.
The film suggests that this loss of his loving environment and his mother's nurturing presence leaves a lasting emotional scar, contributing to a sense of longing and loss that manifests throughout Kane’s life.
Emily Norton Kane
Emily Norton Kane (played by Ruth Warrick), the first wife of Charles Foster Kane, appears primarily through flashbacks and memories shared by other characters. While her portrayal is limited, she serves as a significant figure in Kane's life, highlighting the contrasting paths of ambition and social standing within their relationship.
Emily, the niece of the President of the United States, marries Kane not out of personal connection, but as a strategic move for both parties. This loveless marriage exposes a fundamental difference in their values. While Kane prioritizes building his media empire and wielding power, Emily embodies traditional societal expectations and desires a more fulfilling and intimate relationship.
The film portrays a gradual decline in their connection, visually depicted through breakfast table sequences showcasing their growing distance. Emily's disapproval of Kane's tactics and his neglect of their personal life lead to their eventual separation.
Mr. W.P Thatcher
W.P. Thatcher, the wealthy banker and guardian of Charles Foster Kane, emerges as a complex figure whose relationship with Kane is fraught with tension and resentment. While his direct interactions with Kane are limited, his presence throughout the film shapes Kane's life and contributes to his conflicting emotions.
Thatcher becomes Kane's legal guardian after Mary Kane relinquishes her son. He provides Charles with financial security and access to education, fulfilling his responsibilities as a guardian. However, the film portrays their relationship as one of formality and obligation rather than genuine warmth or affection.
Throughout the film, Thatcher is presented as a disciplined, conservative figure representing the establishment. His views and values often clash with Kane's rebellious and ambitious nature. Kane consistently challenges Thatcher's authority, evident in their first encounter where Kane pushes Thatcher with his sled.
The film never explicitly reveals Thatcher's perspective on Kane's life choices. However, the presence of a large statue of Thatcher in the Inquirer building suggests a sense of pride in his accomplishments and influence on Kane's early life.
Despite their strained relationship, Thatcher remains a constant presence in Kane's life, even after becoming estranged. His presence serves as a reminder of the past and the choices that shaped Kane's character.
Mr. Bernstein
Mr. Bernstein (played by Everett Sloane), an elderly businessman, appears briefly but plays a crucial role in revealing the emotional significance of "Rosebud." His encounter with the reporter, Jerry Thompson, sheds light on Charles Foster Kane's past and the potential meaning behind the enigmatic word.
Bernstein, a former employee of Kane's, exhibits a deep respect and affection for his former employer. He readily shares his recollection of a young Kane happily playing with his "Rosebud" sled, conveying a sense of genuine fondness and nostalgia.
Through Bernstein's perspective, the audience gains a glimpse into Kane's childhood innocence and happiness. The simple act of playing with a sled becomes symbolic of a carefree time before the complexities and losses that shaped Kane's life.
Jerry Thompson
Jerry Thompson (played by William Alland) serves as the film's narrative centerpiece, but his character is deliberately presented as a blank slate. Through his limited dialogue and physical presentation, Thompson functions as a conduit for the audience's investigation into the life of Charles Foster Kane.
Thompson is introduced as a young reporter tasked with uncovering the meaning behind Kane's final word, "Rosebud." He methodically interviews those who knew Kane, attempting to piece together a comprehensive picture of the man. His demeanor remains neutral and objective throughout the film, offering no personal opinions or interpretations of the information he gathers.
The film deliberately obscures Thompson's personal thoughts and feelings. He is mostly shown from behind-the-shoulder or in medium shots, creating a physical distance between him and the audience. This approach prevents the audience from forming a strong connection with Thompson and ensures that the focus remains on Kane and the various interpretations of his life. Thompson's lack of personal involvement allows the viewers to interpret the film's complexities and ambiguities without being swayed by an individual perspective.
