Notice how when he lost everything he walks to the window and gets smaller, being diminished because he has nothing because of the great depression, but when he hears the good news, and that he will still be getting paid and maintain control of his news paper, he slowly walks back to the table and gets bigger in the scene, meaning that he can and will make a comeback.
2:08 - "My mother should have chosen a less reliable banker.." A single line, but significant: in the midst of this huge, empty office, Kane voices a half-wish that he DIDN'T have all his wealth because all he's been able to do with it is "to buy things." He's not beaten, but he has an inkling there must be more to life than just money.
Look at this scene, as Kane relinquishes control of his newspapers he's in the background as other people are in the foreground signing papers to decide his fate. This is very similar to the shot of his childhood when he was signed away by his mother, and even the way he walks over to the window is the same way his father did when relinquishing control of him. Sad to think that Charles, despite his attempts to control his own destiny, sadly wound up back where he started all those years ago, always repeating the mistakes of himself, and his parents.
another wonderful scene...the large windows with the view of New York's financial district in the background...you can feel the power of the city, and the gravity of the Depression.
How To Fuck Around With Scale Without Moving Your Camera 101: A Masterclass by Orson Welles. Buy Citizen Kane and get your copy of the masterclass for free! Kidding aside, this was rather enlightening. Made me understand filmmaking better and appreciate it even more than I already do.
Perhaps the only person who should remotely know what 'Rosebud' is was Mr Thatcher, since it first came between him and Kane at their first meeting (when Kane attacks him with it). Kane is gifted with a nicer substitute as a Christmas gift (which I imagine was soon tossed into the fireplace), but appears bitter as it's a reminder of the simpler life he's lost, despite what he's 'gained'.
"After he signs the papers of his surrender, he turns and walks into the back of the shot. Deep focus allows Welles to play a trick of perspective. Behind Kane on the wall is a window that seems to be of average size. But as he walks toward it, we see it is further away and much higher than we thought. Eventually he stands beneath its lower sill, shrunken and diminished. Then as he walks toward us, his stature grows again. A man always seems the same size to himself, because he does not stand w
*sigh* Why must Cinema Studies rename things that already have perfectly good names in associated and relevant fields? As someone else notes, Kane isn't walking along the Z-axis: instead, the deep focus (aka depth of field for those who know still photography) allows Welles-or Toland? hell, somebody-to play with relative scale of the figures *and* ground in the scene, where Kane shrinks as he walks toward the windows, which are revealed as being quite far from the floor and enormous in themselves, to both dramatic and metaphorical effect. Goddamn, Kane is a great fucking movie. I love it. I could watch it all day . . . and have, now I think of it.
Z-axis is forward and backward. Y axis is up and down. X-axis is left and right. Because he is walking forward and back, how is that not on the Z-axis?
- A man always seems the same size to himself, because he does not stand where we stand to look at him." - Roger Ebert about the symbolism of this scene..
I came here from that essay (www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-citizen-kane-1941), but the most interesting aspect to me is that he cannot see out of the window once he gets to it.
At a loss rate of $1 million per year, Kane would only need to earn 1/60th (1.6%) of his fortune in interest/dividends per year to be able to run his newspaper indefinitely. It would be nearly impossible for him to go bankrupt or even run out of cash. A slight oversight, but it made for some great scenes.
It's an optical illusion of perspective. Kane appears to get smaller as he moves into the distance, so the height of the sill appears to go higher in comparison.
It must have been afterwards, as Kane is seen with Hitler in the "News On The March" sequence (which might have been from 1933-1939). I'd guess she would have left him between 1939-1941.
It's sad that Thatcher offers the sincere "what would you have liked to have been?" as an olive branch of sorts so they don't spend what is probably their final meeting sniping at each other, after having known each other almost all their lives. But no, Kane still can't let go of his anger and resentment towards Thatcher.
@@lluna1959 Thatcher wasn’t a villain. He simply did what he was paid to do, and always tried to look after Charles’ best interests. His mother was the one who signed him away. Look at the picture next to the sled at the end of the film.
It is tragic and really cruel. Mr. Thatcher was Kane's guardian. To look him in the face in their final meeting and say you wanted to be everything Thatcher hated! What a sh*tty thing to say. Thatcher was a capitalist but he never seemed a monster.
I do not agree with Thatcher. Buying other papers and radio stations were clearly investments, but it seems that Kane bought too much art and collectibles...
Which one? There is the newspaper (The Inquirer) that Kane has purchased and is running; then there is a page from Thatcher's memoirs that the reporter is reading (and which the surrounding scenes are illustrating); and finally there is the contract that Mr Bernstein is reading as Kane agrees to sign over the Inquirer to Thatcher and the bank.
I have no idea, I watched this movie in a film class in high school and don’t remember it at all. I don’t know what I was asking about... thanks for trying to answer me, though!
anybody else notice how Jenny represent a homosexual individual? During the Hays code, that was a big no no, but here they found a way to incorporate an homosexual people as a comedy charachter.
Welles was 24 or 25 but what a voice he had. His best performances were under his direction. Welles was a real monster.
Notice how when he lost everything he walks to the window and gets smaller, being diminished because he has nothing because of the great depression, but when he hears the good news, and that he will still be getting paid and maintain control of his news paper, he slowly walks back to the table and gets bigger in the scene, meaning that he can and will make a comeback.
2:08 - "My mother should have chosen a less reliable banker.." A single line, but significant: in the midst of this huge, empty office, Kane voices a half-wish that he DIDN'T have all his wealth because all he's been able to do with it is "to buy things." He's not beaten, but he has an inkling there must be more to life than just money.
2:45 .... absolute daggers from Kane's eyes. Just amazing acting!
Look at this scene, as Kane relinquishes control of his newspapers he's in the background as other people are in the foreground signing papers to decide his fate. This is very similar to the shot of his childhood when he was signed away by his mother, and even the way he walks over to the window is the same way his father did when relinquishing control of him. Sad to think that Charles, despite his attempts to control his own destiny, sadly wound up back where he started all those years ago, always repeating the mistakes of himself, and his parents.
"I think I did pretty well under the circumstances..." Love this line
"If I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man."
That's the line that I took away from the movie.
another wonderful scene...the large windows with the view of New York's financial district in the background...you can feel the power of the city, and the gravity of the Depression.
How To Fuck Around With Scale Without Moving Your Camera 101: A Masterclass by Orson Welles. Buy Citizen Kane and get your copy of the masterclass for free! Kidding aside, this was rather enlightening. Made me understand filmmaking better and appreciate it even more than I already do.
It just occurred to me that this film has many moments of silence between dialogue, which makes it feel modern almost.
After all these years, and all these viewings, I'm still not sure if I like Charles Kane or not. Brilliance of the highest quality.
"Everything you hate" is brilliantly delivered.
Perhaps the only person who should remotely know what 'Rosebud' is was Mr Thatcher, since it first came between him and Kane at their first meeting (when Kane attacks him with it). Kane is gifted with a nicer substitute as a Christmas gift (which I imagine was soon tossed into the fireplace), but appears bitter as it's a reminder of the simpler life he's lost, despite what he's 'gained'.
Citizen Kane is a story of privilege. It is the story of a man who could never know love bc it is reciprocal instead of on his own terms.
I'm looking for this scene! Thank you.
"After he signs the papers of his surrender, he turns and walks into the back of the shot. Deep focus allows Welles to play a trick of perspective. Behind Kane on the wall is a window that seems to be of average size. But as he walks toward it, we see it is further away and much higher than we thought. Eventually he stands beneath its lower sill, shrunken and diminished. Then as he walks toward us, his stature grows again. A man always seems the same size to himself, because he does not stand w
*sigh* Why must Cinema Studies rename things that already have perfectly good names in associated and relevant fields? As someone else notes, Kane isn't walking along the Z-axis: instead, the deep focus (aka depth of field for those who know still photography) allows Welles-or Toland? hell, somebody-to play with relative scale of the figures *and* ground in the scene, where Kane shrinks as he walks toward the windows, which are revealed as being quite far from the floor and enormous in themselves, to both dramatic and metaphorical effect.
Goddamn, Kane is a great fucking movie. I love it. I could watch it all day . . . and have, now I think of it.
Z-axis is forward and backward. Y axis is up and down. X-axis is left and right.
Because he is walking forward and back, how is that not on the Z-axis?
- A man always seems the same size to himself, because he does not stand where we stand to look at him."
- Roger Ebert about the symbolism of this scene..
I came here from that essay (www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-citizen-kane-1941), but the most interesting aspect to me is that he cannot see out of the window once he gets to it.
**BEST LINE IN THE MOVIE**
"Well, I always gagged on that silver spoon..."
it is really pretty self-indulgent.
At a loss rate of $1 million per year, Kane would only need to earn 1/60th (1.6%) of his fortune in interest/dividends per year to be able to run his newspaper indefinitely. It would be nearly impossible for him to go bankrupt or even run out of cash. A slight oversight, but it made for some great scenes.
Is it me, or does the window sill get higher as Welles' walks back there?
It's an optical illusion of perspective. Kane appears to get smaller as he moves into the distance, so the height of the sill appears to go higher in comparison.
wouldn't we say in engineering this would be the Y-axis as he recedes and walks forward again... the Z-axis is vertical .... interesting quandary.
In film y is vertical, and in CG zero is at the top, not bottom.
Never watched this movie yet but heard that talkies were only around 15 years before this was made
If you think you know Kane watch his body language compared to what he’s saying.
explain?
"well... I, always, gagged on that silver spoon."
should have been cut after the scene ended.
Does anybody know whether or not Susan left Kane before 1929?
It must have been afterwards, as Kane is seen with Hitler in the "News On The March" sequence (which might have been from 1933-1939). I'd guess she would have left him between 1939-1941.
It's sad that Thatcher offers the sincere "what would you have liked to have been?" as an olive branch of sorts so they don't spend what is probably their final meeting sniping at each other, after having known each other almost all their lives. But no, Kane still can't let go of his anger and resentment towards Thatcher.
Because Thatcher stole part of the most important part of his life: childhood.
@@lluna1959 - His mother made that call, not Thatcher.
@@lluna1959
Thatcher wasn’t a villain. He simply did what he was paid to do, and always tried to look after Charles’ best interests.
His mother was the one who signed him away. Look at the picture next to the sled at the end of the film.
It is tragic and really cruel. Mr. Thatcher was Kane's guardian. To look him in the face in their final meeting and say you wanted to be everything Thatcher hated! What a sh*tty thing to say. Thatcher was a capitalist but he never seemed a monster.
@@quigley6643 he looked after Charles' financial interests. But who was offering him moral guidance?
I do not agree with Thatcher. Buying other papers and radio stations were clearly investments, but it seems that Kane bought too much art and collectibles...
What exactly is this paper in the beginning?
Which one? There is the newspaper (The Inquirer) that Kane has purchased and is running; then there is a page from Thatcher's memoirs that the reporter is reading (and which the surrounding scenes are illustrating); and finally there is the contract that Mr Bernstein is reading as Kane agrees to sign over the Inquirer to Thatcher and the bank.
I have no idea, I watched this movie in a film class in high school and don’t remember it at all. I don’t know what I was asking about... thanks for trying to answer me, though!
The newspaper that Kane buys. The Daily Chronicle.
1941 - WELLES Orson - Citizen Kane -
Z-axis? Computer Aided Drafting, 3D Modeling Software and CNC machines would beg to differ.
...
never thought id see a potato signing an agreement with ghandi
Oh hush, you UA-cam goblin...
anybody else notice how Jenny represent a homosexual individual? During the Hays code, that was a big no no, but here they found a way to incorporate an homosexual people as a comedy charachter.
WTH IS THIS?!?!
a brilliant piece of filmmaking