I always found it really fascinating how shadows were used in Citizen Kane. It's got kind of a Godfather thing going on where alot of the characters shift in and out of shadows during the darker parts of the movie, which was absolutely not normal for the time, most movies of the era were blasted with so much light on set to become kind of dull. But I also found it rather interesting how because of all this, the movie if filmed in a way where we pretty much never get a good look at our main journalists face. Truth be told I don't actually know what that means, maybe it's something to do with the faceless "stories above everything else" nature of the news media, maybe it's just because what the man looks like literally does not matter.
Because he represents the voyeuristic outside pov and curiosity of the audience. He's faceless because he's not really a character and we're not supposed to get invested in him. The opening of the film, with the camera creeping and skulking through obstacles and past fences and the 'Keep Out!' sign, is part of the same framing device. We want to inquire into Kane's life and Thompson does this for us. He's a surrogate for the media and the public and the audience watching the film.
The young Jed Leland knew the first Mrs. Kane, in her youth and knew her well. Brilliant. I don't know of anyone who has grasped the subtle significance of that detail before. Bravo!
I did some googling while writing this video to see if it had that idea had been discussed widely, and while I got a few comments here and there, nothing in-depth. Pretty exciting to find something relatively new in a movie like Kane. Thanks for the kind words :)
@@EyebrowCinema Fascinating. The most common interpretation I've read of Leland (which I thought you were going for) is that he was gay and in love with Kane. Even though the Hays Code effectively prohibited them from mentioning it, there's quite a bit about Leland that could be interpreted as queer coding (He's a drama critic, he went to dancing school, he mentions that he doesn't find the nurses attractive, Kane calls him "overdressed" at one point). If I were to combine the two theories: maybe he was living vicariously through Kane's relationship with Emily, and when that fell apart so did his fantasy?
@@etanaedelman9011 Also an excellent reading. I've always liked the idea that Leland was gay and in love with Kane, but I never thought to combine that with his comments about Emily. The notion that he was living vicariously through her relationship with Kane definitely makes sense though. Thanks for sharing!
@@etanaedelman9011 Doesn’t have to be gay(I mean actually sexually active or having lust for someone of the same sex), to understand why he’s in love with Kane. He can see the wasted potential, and the twisting of Kane’s heart and soul, which lead to Kane taking it out on others. Isn’t Leland a partial stand in for Mank? I think Leland loved Emily, yet he also loved them both until Kane becomes more of a narcissistic megalomaniac and cruel to those he is pretending to love and respect. I think part of the greatness of the script, as well as how Welles is able to put it all together, is that either take can work. Actually, both can work, if one sees Leland as loving one of them as a friend, then as a couple, or as a bi man who doesn’t realize it, or many other ways that actual relationships work in reality.
I first saw these movies in the late Seventies; Kane at an arthouse cinema and Rashomon on public TV. They came at the right time as I was just getting into the serious cinematic canon, and they're both milestones of unconventional storytelling, reflecting the unreliability and biases of memory and individual perspectives in trying to get at some kind of truth, or, conversely, to muddy it up.
I'd say Rashomon does give some added credence to the Woodcutter's final version, both because it is the only version being told directly in the frame narrative and because it seems to incorporate the most from the other versions. (Being last also helps.)
i'm sure it was an independent interpretation but if he is the first to point it out then get this man some kind of medal! i see an unspoken paranoid view now that Leeland might hold that Kane was responsible in some way for her Emily's death.
I always thought the bandit's version of events in the most flattering not just to him, but to all three parties. In his version the Samurai was a bad ass warrior and his wife was the ultimate damsel to be won. The other parties clearly did not want to be seen in this way, but he really wants to make this an epic story. And for reference I have always trusted the woodcutter , his lie was completely tangential to the story, he merely stole some valuables from the scene of the crime. Why would he care if the bandit and Samurai seem like idiots? I understand the point that no one can be trusted and no one is innocent, but that woodcutter is not secretly Keyser Soze.
The real Kane, media mogul William Randolph Hearst, did sensationalize the news. One of the comics he ran was a satirical character, the Yellow Kid because he was colored yellow. Hence, that became yellow (sensationalized) journalism.
funny, I felt like Leland was super gay for Kane. that's how I interpreted his apparent disappointment at their wedding. and I thought when he got mad at Kane's cheating, it was more on the way of "why didn't you cheat on her with me then?"
Naah man, I don't think so, nowadays, everyone is terming every bromance in the movie as gay, that's not true. I think Leland was just a good friend of Kane back from school days and he was the only one who knew Kane better than anyone else. Also, he got mad at Kane's cheating because earlier Kane had written "declaration of principles" and Kane himself had later on broken their principles and forgot about them, I think that's why Leland got mad at him because Kane had blew it even though, they were on a good run. That's the reason Leland presented him with the same note of declaration of principles again to remind him of the rules on which they had started.
@@psycictree27 Naah, A'll'Yaall, just proved Kane fits the Rashomon test, and negates the thesis of this video. Kane is the story about a person, Rashomon a story about an event. CISS.
@@psycictree27 I agree. For every point someone makes that Leland is gay for Kane, there are direct moments in the film as to why that can’t be said with certainty. It’s like how some folks take Shakespeare I Love and make it into either a trans, bisexual or gay love affair. Even though the only reason Shakespeare ends up feeling so weird around the “in disguise Paltrow,” is because of her femininity and lust for Shakespeare coming through, while they bond. I mean isn’t the issue of the character’s masculinity and whether they are straight something the other actors joke around with in the movie? He doesn’t ever see the character as a sexual being until he suspects that is is actually a woman in disguise. I only bring up this film because it’s more recent, and many are going back to recreate these times and places to insert 21st century social commentary. It’s no doubt that LGBTQ folks existed throughout history, but they were an even smaller minority than the nearly 6% of the adult population they make up in modern times. This is from a Gallup poll, so I’m sure depending on the source the percentage will be higher or lower. I’m all for diversity in all things, but not forcing diversity while ignoring reality. Look at recent movies, and this diversity has been made into something that one is punished for not having.
I've just discovered your channel and I already love it. Anyway, I wonder what it tells about me if I wanted to believe all of the Rashomon characters, until I realized they all lied completely. lol This definitely is an unusual movie where we wait for a definite answer and are a bit frustrated that we don't receive it. I didn't make the connection with us being the judge in the first person, well spotted. I guess I'd be a lousy one.
I would love to see you tackle Antonioni's ennui trilogy... "L' eclisse" in particular is just one of those rare films that left me awe-struck at the end.
No need for a 15minute video Oscar Wilde already summed this up in a few sentences. "All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors." - Wilde
I thought we all were supposed to know that Leeland loved Emily. Maybe platonic. Probably not. I'm not a film intellectual by any means and I do miss plenty of obvious things in films. But this subplot is something I just thought was obvious.
For Rashomon, I can safely say that whoever is telling the truth is not the bandit. Not only is his story a bit too good to be true, but it's incoherent. He says the wife was consenting and that she would agree to being with whoever won the duel between to two, but then he says she ran away. Why? If she was ready to be with any of them, wouldn't she wait to see who wins her hand? Sure, maybe the sight of a man she loves being killed is one she doesn't want to see, but then the solution would have been to cover her eyes at the moment of the killing blow or to turn around for the duration of the duel instead of just running away and risk getting lost. Perhaps she lied. Maybe she didn't want to be with either of them and just wanted to create a diversion so she could get away, but then wouldn't the bandit feel betrayed and express more frustration at the trial? Not to mention, if you know anything about feudal Japan, you'll know it wasn't the best place for women to go about on their own. She needed a man by her side to survive in this society. Randomly turning her back on the two men that wanted her wouldn't have been the wisest move in this kind of context. Moreover, the bandit's story is the only one where the murder weapon isn't the dagger, but a katana. We have 3 witnesses saying the same thing (that the murder was comitted with a dagger) and another that's saying something else. I say that last one, aka the bandit, is a liar.
Is this the effect when people believed that there was a extraterrestial attack on earth?? No wait, wrong orson wells creation. But for real great video.
Wow, how have I missed that line that Leland knew Elizabeth? Still though, you're a little naive to think the lifelong bachelor, drama critic, Southern dandy, ascot wearer, who met Elizabeth in dancing school (gracefully), had anything but a great platonic love for her. Leland even knows the state of the marriage from honeymoon period to quiet distant breakfast, because Elizabeth dishes to her friend who she can confide in and probably vice versa. I think the screenwriters knew who Leland was but were limited in the era they lived in from outright saying it. They lay out enough stereotypes that an audience contemporary to Citizen Kane, could read between the lines. That's also why Elizabeth's antisemitism towards Bernstein is nuanced. Read into it and she doesn't want him visiting with her son because he is Jewish, even though the J-word is never used in the whole film. Yet, another reason Bernstein is fond of Kane: Kane was his defender, and made him his right-hand man in an era where antisemitism was more overt and unapologetic. On Leland, the betrayal of Elizabeth is extra subtext to his falling out with Kane, but I think Leland was an idealist and truly believed his best friend was going to bring political reform. He was too late to realize Charles Foster Kane is more concerned with himself than the good of the people or his family.
@@Punchout101 Not crying. Sounds like you are projecting, I bet you have your pronouns in your twitter bio and need a safe space when someone "misgenders" you....
I always found it really fascinating how shadows were used in Citizen Kane. It's got kind of a Godfather thing going on where alot of the characters shift in and out of shadows during the darker parts of the movie, which was absolutely not normal for the time, most movies of the era were blasted with so much light on set to become kind of dull. But I also found it rather interesting how because of all this, the movie if filmed in a way where we pretty much never get a good look at our main journalists face. Truth be told I don't actually know what that means, maybe it's something to do with the faceless "stories above everything else" nature of the news media, maybe it's just because what the man looks like literally does not matter.
Because he represents the voyeuristic outside pov and curiosity of the audience. He's faceless because he's not really a character and we're not supposed to get invested in him. The opening of the film, with the camera creeping and skulking through obstacles and past fences and the 'Keep Out!' sign, is part of the same framing device. We want to inquire into Kane's life and Thompson does this for us. He's a surrogate for the media and the public and the audience watching the film.
This channel is so underrated!
I certainly like to think so. Cheers.
The young Jed Leland knew the first Mrs. Kane, in her youth and knew her well. Brilliant. I don't know of anyone who has grasped the subtle significance of that detail before. Bravo!
I did some googling while writing this video to see if it had that idea had been discussed widely, and while I got a few comments here and there, nothing in-depth. Pretty exciting to find something relatively new in a movie like Kane.
Thanks for the kind words :)
@@EyebrowCinema Fascinating. The most common interpretation I've read of Leland (which I thought you were going for) is that he was gay and in love with Kane. Even though the Hays Code effectively prohibited them from mentioning it, there's quite a bit about Leland that could be interpreted as queer coding (He's a drama critic, he went to dancing school, he mentions that he doesn't find the nurses attractive, Kane calls him "overdressed" at one point). If I were to combine the two theories: maybe he was living vicariously through Kane's relationship with Emily, and when that fell apart so did his fantasy?
@@etanaedelman9011 Also an excellent reading. I've always liked the idea that Leland was gay and in love with Kane, but I never thought to combine that with his comments about Emily. The notion that he was living vicariously through her relationship with Kane definitely makes sense though. Thanks for sharing!
@@etanaedelman9011
Doesn’t have to be gay(I mean actually sexually active or having lust for someone of the same sex), to understand why he’s in love with Kane.
He can see the wasted potential, and the twisting of Kane’s heart and soul, which lead to Kane taking it out on others.
Isn’t Leland a partial stand in for Mank?
I think Leland loved Emily, yet he also loved them both until Kane becomes more of a narcissistic megalomaniac and cruel to those he is pretending to love and respect.
I think part of the greatness of the script, as well as how Welles is able to put it all together, is that either take can work.
Actually, both can work, if one sees Leland as loving one of them as a friend, then as a couple, or as a bi man who doesn’t realize it, or many other ways that actual relationships work in reality.
I first saw these movies in the late Seventies; Kane at an arthouse cinema and Rashomon on public TV. They came at the right time as I was just getting into the serious cinematic canon, and they're both milestones of unconventional storytelling, reflecting the unreliability and biases of memory and individual perspectives in trying to get at some kind of truth, or, conversely, to muddy it up.
I'd say Rashomon does give some added credence to the Woodcutter's final version, both because it is the only version being told directly in the frame narrative and because it seems to incorporate the most from the other versions. (Being last also helps.)
wow, leland loved emily. what a keen insight! how many critique kane & no one hypothesized this, cool awesome
i'm sure it was an independent interpretation but if he is the first to point it out then get this man some kind of medal! i see an unspoken paranoid view now that Leeland might hold that Kane was responsible in some way for her Emily's death.
I always thought the bandit's version of events in the most flattering not just to him, but to all three parties. In his version the Samurai was a bad ass warrior and his wife was the ultimate damsel to be won. The other parties clearly did not want to be seen in this way, but he really wants to make this an epic story. And for reference I have always trusted the woodcutter , his lie was completely tangential to the story, he merely stole some valuables from the scene of the crime. Why would he care if the bandit and Samurai seem like idiots? I understand the point that no one can be trusted and no one is innocent, but that woodcutter is not secretly Keyser Soze.
Why do you not have millions of subscribers??? This video is profound, going to the core issue in the subject of History.
She’s Gotta Have It by Spike Lee also has these effects but it’s not as well known
I didn't think the dudes of Rashomon were lying but simply different povs
The real Kane, media mogul William Randolph Hearst, did sensationalize the news. One of the comics he ran was a satirical character, the Yellow Kid because he was colored yellow. Hence, that became yellow (sensationalized) journalism.
I'm 35 and just watch both films for the first time. I'm glad I waited to mature as a human/viewer until consuming these masterpieces.
funny, I felt like Leland was super gay for Kane. that's how I interpreted his apparent disappointment at their wedding. and I thought when he got mad at Kane's cheating, it was more on the way of "why didn't you cheat on her with me then?"
Also a very valid reading.
Naah man, I don't think so, nowadays, everyone is terming every bromance in the movie as gay, that's not true. I think Leland was just a good friend of Kane back from school days and he was the only one who knew Kane better than anyone else. Also, he got mad at Kane's cheating because earlier Kane had written "declaration of principles" and Kane himself had later on broken their principles and forgot about them, I think that's why Leland got mad at him because Kane had blew it even though, they were on a good run. That's the reason Leland presented him with the same note of declaration of principles again to remind him of the rules on which they had started.
@@psycictree27 Naah, A'll'Yaall, just proved Kane fits the Rashomon test, and negates the thesis of this video. Kane is the story about a person, Rashomon a story about an event. CISS.
@@EyebrowCinema Now you're not the only one shipping Citizen Kane characters!
@@psycictree27
I agree. For every point someone makes that Leland is gay for Kane, there are direct moments in the film as to why that can’t be said with certainty.
It’s like how some folks take Shakespeare I Love and make it into either a trans, bisexual or gay love affair.
Even though the only reason Shakespeare ends up feeling so weird around the “in disguise Paltrow,” is because of her femininity and lust for Shakespeare coming through, while they bond. I mean isn’t the issue of the character’s masculinity and whether they are straight something the other actors joke around with in the movie?
He doesn’t ever see the character as a sexual being until he suspects that is is actually a woman in disguise.
I only bring up this film because it’s more recent, and many are going back to recreate these times and places to insert 21st century social commentary.
It’s no doubt that LGBTQ folks existed throughout history, but they were an even smaller minority than the nearly 6% of the adult population they make up in modern times. This is from a Gallup poll, so I’m sure depending on the source the percentage will be higher or lower.
I’m all for diversity in all things, but not forcing diversity while ignoring reality.
Look at recent movies, and this diversity has been made into something that one is punished for not having.
I've just discovered your channel and I already love it. Anyway, I wonder what it tells about me if I wanted to believe all of the Rashomon characters, until I realized they all lied completely. lol This definitely is an unusual movie where we wait for a definite answer and are a bit frustrated that we don't receive it. I didn't make the connection with us being the judge in the first person, well spotted. I guess I'd be a lousy one.
2 of my favorite films of all time :)
Mine too, my friend.
This is fantastic and should have a million views. I hope it gets there someday!
I would love to see you tackle Antonioni's ennui trilogy... "L' eclisse" in particular is just one of those rare films that left me awe-struck at the end.
No need for a 15minute video Oscar Wilde already summed this up in a few sentences.
"All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors."
- Wilde
I thought we all were supposed to know that Leeland loved Emily. Maybe platonic. Probably not. I'm not a film intellectual by any means and I do miss plenty of obvious things in films. But this subplot is something I just thought was obvious.
For Rashomon, I can safely say that whoever is telling the truth is not the bandit. Not only is his story a bit too good to be true, but it's incoherent. He says the wife was consenting and that she would agree to being with whoever won the duel between to two, but then he says she ran away. Why? If she was ready to be with any of them, wouldn't she wait to see who wins her hand? Sure, maybe the sight of a man she loves being killed is one she doesn't want to see, but then the solution would have been to cover her eyes at the moment of the killing blow or to turn around for the duration of the duel instead of just running away and risk getting lost.
Perhaps she lied. Maybe she didn't want to be with either of them and just wanted to create a diversion so she could get away, but then wouldn't the bandit feel betrayed and express more frustration at the trial? Not to mention, if you know anything about feudal Japan, you'll know it wasn't the best place for women to go about on their own. She needed a man by her side to survive in this society. Randomly turning her back on the two men that wanted her wouldn't have been the wisest move in this kind of context.
Moreover, the bandit's story is the only one where the murder weapon isn't the dagger, but a katana. We have 3 witnesses saying the same thing (that the murder was comitted with a dagger) and another that's saying something else. I say that last one, aka the bandit, is a liar.
Yes please
Is this the effect when people believed that there was a extraterrestial attack on earth?? No wait, wrong orson wells creation.
But for real great video.
Ha! Nicely done. Thank you for saying so. This was fun to make, so hopefully it's relatively fun to watch.
Eyebrow Cinema it was fun to watch and very informative.
Awesome.
My first two films in film 101.
"Theres something else you need to know about lealand"..."YOURE NOT A DISH! YOURE A MAN"
How does this only have close to 6,000 views?
With any luck more people like you will discover it over time.
@@EyebrowCinema Goodluck to you, it's very well made
What is the better movie citizen kane or rashomon?
Love your pieces. You are wise in your generation.
Just doubled featured these two last week 😎
Badass double feature.
Incredible video
Wow, how have I missed that line that Leland knew Elizabeth? Still though, you're a little naive to think the lifelong bachelor, drama critic, Southern dandy, ascot wearer, who met Elizabeth in dancing school (gracefully), had anything but a great platonic love for her. Leland even knows the state of the marriage from honeymoon period to quiet distant breakfast, because Elizabeth dishes to her friend who she can confide in and probably vice versa. I think the screenwriters knew who Leland was but were limited in the era they lived in from outright saying it. They lay out enough stereotypes that an audience contemporary to Citizen Kane, could read between the lines. That's also why Elizabeth's antisemitism towards Bernstein is nuanced. Read into it and she doesn't want him visiting with her son because he is Jewish, even though the J-word is never used in the whole film. Yet, another reason Bernstein is fond of Kane: Kane was his defender, and made him his right-hand man in an era where antisemitism was more overt and unapologetic. On Leland, the betrayal of Elizabeth is extra subtext to his falling out with Kane, but I think Leland was an idealist and truly believed his best friend was going to bring political reform. He was too late to realize Charles Foster Kane is more concerned with himself than the good of the people or his family.
Gen Z will be underwhelmed by Kane but it Is a masterpiece
Great !
The narrator sounds rather young, yet his observations sound rather seasoned. Please age your voice ..
Play it at half speed. No need to thank me
Wow
47.8 *+1*
cheers
Good to meet you!
Keep your political jabs out of your content. Won't be watching any more.
Good riddance.
Oh boo hoo! You're a snow flake!
@@Punchout101 Snowflakes are the ones who jam this stuff in at every turn.
@@creategreatness8823 they are also the ones who cry about it
@@Punchout101 Not crying. Sounds like you are projecting, I bet you have your pronouns in your twitter bio and need a safe space when someone "misgenders" you....