Archive: Citizen Kane

Orson Welles was only 25 when his film Citizen Kane was released in 1941. It is widely acclaimed as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, films yet made. Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss Welles' film, in which he plays the lead role of Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper magnate. It was his first acting role. He also directed, produced and co-wrote this story of loneliness at the heart of a megalomaniac. The production was influenced by Welles’ experience in radio and theatre, and expressed the potential of cinema as an artistic medium with its use of deep focus, long takes and other techniques. The plot was partly inspired by the life of William Randolph Hearst, who then used the power of his own newspapers to try to suppress the film’s release. It was to take some years before Citizen Kane reached a fuller audience and, from that point, become so celebrated. With: Stella Bruzzi Professor of Film and Dean of Arts and Humanities at University College London Ian Christie Professor of Film and Media History at Birkbeck, University of London John David Rhodes Professor of Film Studies and Visual Culture at the University of Cambridge Producer: Simon Tillotson In Our Time is a BBC Studios production A world-class seminar every week. Spanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time celebrates the pursuit of knowledge and the enduring power of ideas. In each episode, host Misha Glenny and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK.

• 0:05Speaker 01

  Sometimes we all need an extra helping hand, especially with the tricky business problem you've been putting off. Claude is an AI for just that. It's a collaborator that understands your entire workflow and thinks with you, not for you. And Claude isn't just for quick questions. Hand it a whole task like turning a folder or scattered notes into a report, and it does the work and hands back something finished that you can open and edit. Claude can now draft a doc or deck right in front of you, and Claude Design now lives right inside Claude. Describe the website or prototype you're picturing, attach your design system, and it comes back in your own design language, ready to edit right on the canvas. It works with your files and the tools you already use, like Gmail

• 0:48Speaker 01

  and Slack. And whether you're debugging code at midnight, building a financial model, or strategising your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter. For problems worth solving, get started with Claude at claude.ai/solve. That's claude.ai/solve. And check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode. claude.ai/solve.

• 1:15Speaker 02

  Hey, I'm Niall Rogers. This fall, I'll be driving across the country, meeting some of today's coolest and most fascinating artists. We'll explore the stories before the moments that changed everything. Because every musician remembers the moment where it all began. Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln original series on the iHeartRadio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 1:47Speaker 03

  OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 2:16Speaker 04

  Hello, Misha Glenny here. After our episode on Casablanca, I've chosen another episode about a classic film for my archive pick. In my final year at university, I studied the German new wave cinema of the 1960s, directors such as Fassbender, Herzog and Schleendorf. But before we saw any of their work, our professor insisted that we watch just one non-German movie to begin with, Citizen Kane. Filmed in 1941, its director and star was a 25-year-old theatrical wunderkind, Orson Welles. Unbelievably, it was the first

• 2:55Speaker 04

  film he had ever made. Citizen Kane was the original auteur film, and one that exerted a powerful influence first over French and then German filmmakers in the 1960s. But there was another German connection to this film. Orson Welles and his legendary cinematographer, Greg Tolan, were heavily influenced by the work of German expressionist directors from the 1930s, like Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, and G.W. Papst. The creative wheel turning full circle. Here, Melvin and his guests expertly explain why this film is still regarded as a masterpiece that brooks no competition.

• 3:37Speaker 05

  Hello. Citizen Kane, released in 1941, is widely acclaimed as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, film ever made. Orson Welles plays the lead role of Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper magnate, and Welles directed, produced, and co-wrote this story of loneliness and megalomania. It was inspired by the life of the mighty William Randolph Hearst, who used the power of his own newspapers to try to suppress the film's release. And it was to take some years before Citizen Kane became the sensation it remains. With me to discuss Citizen Kane are Stella Bruzzi, Professor of Film and Dean of Arts and Humanities at University College London, Ian Christie, Professor of Film and Media History at Birkbeck

• 4:18Speaker 05

  University of London, and John David Rhodes, Professor of Film Studies and Visual Culture at the University of Cambridge. J.D. Rhodes, what had Orson Welles done before this that we ought to know about?

• 4:30Speaker 06

  I suppose it's where do you start, or what didn't he do before that? He was the ultimate wonder child. He was very prodigious, very precocious. He had acted as early as age 16 at the Gate Theatre in Dublin, and used that performance as a bit of a calling card when he returned to the US and was sent to New York, basically, to meet Catherine Cornell by Thornton Wilder, who was a family acquaintance. And from there, he toured with Cornell, and in a performance of Romeo and Juliet, and some other performances that toured, and also returned back to New York. I think very, more importantly, he became involved in the Federal Theatre Project in collaboration with John Housman, very famously

• 5:11Speaker 06

  mounted a production of Macbeth with an all-black cast in Harlem that was set in Haiti. That collaboration during the New Deal also saw The Cradle Will Rock, the adjutant musical.

• 5:24Speaker 05

  And he worked in radio as well.

• 5:26Speaker 06

  And he did, and finally in radio, most famously War of the Worlds, which became, obviously, a very notorious programme that eventually sent him to Hollywood under the invitation from RKO.

• 5:36Speaker 05

  Would it be true to say that War of the Worlds gave him the tint of a sensational reputation?

• 5:43Speaker 06

  Well, it certainly made him, he was already a celebrity, and was already being celebrated as a celebrity during the radio and theatre years. But then that made him this completely unstoppable force. Also, that's where he honed his reputation as writer, director, producer, and performer. And I think that's one of the important things about the radio history.

• 6:02Speaker 05

  When he was asked by RKO to do what was to be his first film, he asked for the same thing, Control of Everything. So how did he assemble the crew?

• 6:10Speaker 06

  He drew on some of the talents that he had assembled at the Mercury Theatre, the repertory theatre he had run in New York, again with Housman. So he brought a lot, it was important to him to bring actors who mostly had not appeared before the camera up until this point. It gave the film an element of, given that we move into the film in this very mysterious way, not meeting very recognisable faces, I think lends an aura of mystery to the film. So we're seeing Joseph Cotton for more or less the first time on screen, Agnes Moorehead, Dorothy Comegor, who appeared in bit parts before this film, is also relatively unknown, and George Koulouris, also relatively unknown in Hollywood. So I think that there was something important about not being immediately plunged

• 6:51Speaker 06

  into the familiarity of the studio star system that makes the film.

• 6:56Speaker 05

  It was a sensational move. It gave it a freshness and still does when you see it now. I've seen it 50 years after I saw it for the first time, yeah.

• 7:02Speaker 06

  And there's something amazing about when you're seeing that first shot of Agnes Moorehead and realising that you're seeing Agnes Moorehead's...

• 7:09Speaker 05

  That's the mother of the boy.

• 7:09Speaker 06

  Yes, exactly. Who plays young Kane's mother.

• 7:13Speaker 05

  Most of the actors are unknown to a cinema-going audience, which would be a very religious cinema-going audience at that time. People turned up at the regular times to see films in numbers. But the crew was quite experienced, wasn't it? I mean, a very experienced photographer.

• 7:27Speaker 06

  Greg Tolan, yes, who would have collaborated with William Wyler and John Ford and Dorothy Arzner and all the other, a number of other major filmmakers up until that point. And I think their meeting was very productive and generative, and was apparently, by biographical accounts, a very congenial collaboration, where Tolan was already, already had a reputation as an experimenter, and had seen Welles's production of Julius Caesar and admired its experimentalism. And so I think that formed right away a basis for a very productive working relationship.

• 8:02Speaker 05

  The photography itself drew a comment because it was so bold and daring and consistently good.

• 8:07Speaker 06

  Well, I think what we're seeing a lot is an emphasis on deep focus, that we can see every plane of the image equally in focus. The film was often favoured low-angle shots so that we're seeing a yawning expanse behind the characters and these interiors. Often a false ceiling was used to create that more realistic sense of being inside these cavernous spaces of Kane's mansion, Xanadu.

• 8:33Speaker 05

  You talk about the place, and the place is Xanadu, which Citizen Kane built for himself. The film starts like that. It's almost like it's a Gothic horror film, enormous mansion with the art of Western Europe littering it all over the place, and then goes on a fantastic rampage of a newsreel, a seeming contemporary newsreel. Can you tell us about that juxtaposition, Stella?

• 8:57Speaker 07

  As you say, it's incredibly slow, languid camera, subjective camera, all about style. And all of a sudden, you hear this bold, brassy music, and news on the march starts. It's very reminiscent of another RKO production. It's a pastiche of The March of Time, which was a regular newsreel that ran on the radio from 1931, on film from 1935, told you the big stories of the day. What it's giving you, first off, is the story of Kane in miniature, rooting it in contemporary history, in contemporary politics, which for Welles was important. It starts with telling you about Xanadu, likening Kane to

• 9:42Speaker 07

  Noah Kublai Khan, obviously. Then it tells you his whole life in miniature. And it does it through faked archive and through real live footage, which are seamlessly intercut. It gallops through all of Kane's life, telling you the story. So you get Charles Foster Kane on Hitler's balcony, you get Charles Foster Kane alongside Teddy Roosevelt, you get him getting married on the White House lawn, you get him integrated into a history that the viewer's understood.

• 10:12Speaker 05

  Is it possible to summarise the plot in half a dozen sentences? It's a very simple plot.

• 10:16Speaker 07

  It is a very simple plot. Charles Foster Kane, born into humble beginnings, comes unexpectedly into a huge fortune, is signed away to a legal guardian when he comes of age, decides to use that fortune, builds a massive print media and business empire, which in 1929 and through the Depression, he loses, builds this amazing mansion with the biggest zoo in the world, and dies a recluse. That's a very simple story, just like Time on the March is a very simple story. But obviously, what that sets up is the fact that Citizen Kane isn't going to be that simple story. And so, as the newsreel comes

• 10:58Speaker 07

  to a rather ignominious and inglorious end, is the projector just gets turned off. The producer turns around to all the journalists around him in the screening room and says, this film needs an end. What we've got here is what the man did. We don't know who he was.

• 11:15Speaker 05

  The fiction film has to do with his saying the word rosebud and that the hunt is on, it's in the MacGuffin, it's the excuse for a plot, to find out what rosebud means. And that trickles through, doesn't, doesn't pound through the film, it trickles through the film. Ian Christie, William Randolph Hearst, who was he and was he the model for Citizen Kane?

• 11:37Speaker 00

  Well, in a way, he was the model, although there was quite a lot of denial going on for good and obvious legal reasons. Hearst was a phenomenon in the tabloid press, the yellow press. And he had built up an empire of newspapers all over America. He saw himself as a man intervening in world events. He was very active during the Spanish-American War, for instance, and that's kind of reflected in Citizen Kane. He was also really engaged in public affairs during the 1930s. He had signed up all these extraordinary columnists: Trotsky, Hitler, Mussolini, they were all columnists for the-

• 12:17Speaker 05

  Louis Hitler was a columnist.

• 12:18Speaker 00

  For the Saturday supplement of Hearst's newspapers.

• 12:21Speaker 05

  I didn't get that, yeah.

• 12:22Speaker 00

  Hitler wasn't very good, he didn't keep up his copies, so Goering would step in and do it for him. But he was, he saw himself as a man influencing world affairs. And he was very good at picking up ex-prime ministers and presidents and signing them up to write for him. Lloyd George wrote for him.

• 12:37Speaker 05

  Do you think that Wells was conscious of that and modeled Kane on that?

• 12:42Speaker 00

  I think there's no question about it. He made a very measured statement, saying, well, if you're making a film about a newspaper tycoon, you obviously must be aware of, you know, the great newspaper tycoon of our times, William Randolph Hearst. So he kind of implies that he knew as much as anybody knew about Hearst. But there are a few crucial aspects that do tie it more closely to Hearst, especially the, the love object in the film. Basically, Hearst had a mistress-

• 13:10Speaker 05

  On the west coast.

• 13:11Speaker 00

  On the west coast, Marion Davis, who was an important star in Hollywood film. They were a very happy pair, really quite devoted to each other. He had a wife as well. In the film, Charles Foster Kane abandons his wife and takes up with a would-be singer, or somebody that he would like to be a singer. And it doesn't end well, which is kind of, I suppose, the striking difference between the, the truth about Hearst and the, the truth of the, the story of the film.

• 13:38Speaker 05

  Yeah. It turns in anguish, really. It's the most-

• 13:41Speaker 00

  It does.

• 13:42Speaker 05

  Wells as Kane is the most moving part of the film for him, in my view, anyway. RKO took him on, and they were a smallish studio by studio standards at those times, and they more or less said, you can do what you want. What was the result of that for RKO?

• 13:55Speaker 00

  Well, it wasn't a happy outcome for RKO, really. Wells had insisted on total control. And he was, as, as J D said, he was very much a bunterkin, so he could, he could lay down his terms. I think it has to be said that RKO was the smallest of the studios, of the major studios, and they weren't in a very good financial position. And you also have to understand that studios at this period weren't just production studios, they also owned strings of theatres. So RKO didn't have many theatres, and that would turn out to be quite important. It wasn't a very expensive film, it was $686,000. It was a relatively cheap film by the standards of Hollywood at the time, even though it looks like a

• 14:38Speaker 00

  very complex film to us. A lot of it is very clever process photography, brilliant production design, which is never properly acknowledged, and of course, great cinematography.

• 14:50Speaker 05

  Did they feel they were taking a gamble then?

• 14:52Speaker 00

  They were doing something which studios had done before. I mean, when you think back to the great turning point in, in film history, which was The Coming of Sound, it was Warner's, which was a pretty impoverished studio, that took a gamble on The Jazz Singer. And it, it got them out of a bad situation. I think RKO felt something of the same, that they might as well stake something on Wells, because who knows, he might pull something out of the hat.

• 15:17Speaker 05

  He did, but rather later than they'd hoped.

• 15:19Speaker 00

  Well, he, he produced a film which absolutely knocked out everybody who saw it, especially filmmakers, film critics. There's a wonderful column that accompanied the, the early press shows of the film by John O'Hara, the writer, who said, I've just seen the greatest film of all time.

• 15:35Speaker 05

  And J D, J D wrote, it's a tale in part told through objects, in part. And in a sense, everything and everybody becomes an object to, to Citizen Kane. But can we start with this rosebud, which I mentioned earlier?

• 15:49Speaker 06

  Sure. I mean, it's, it's the first word we hear, coming out of the mouth of a man who we come to know finally, or very soon as Charles Foster Kane. And it sets off, and you've already mentioned the word MacGuffin, it's a kind of conceit or ploy to motivate the plot, to figure out what is the meaning or what of this word that was the last word spoken by this, by this character, Charles Foster Kane. We, we find out at the very end of the film, spoiler alert, that it's, it's, it's the sled that we've actually already seen in the amazing scene at his Colorado home, when he's taken away from his mother by the agent of this bank, Thatcher. And so it symbolizes, the sled symbolizes this, this lost dream of a childhood. And so that's the sort of, that's the sort

• 16:33Speaker 06

  of motivating prop that leads him on. But it's, it's also, I think, matched in significance by really the first prop that we see, the first object that we see in close-up detail, which is this funny little cheap snow globe with a log cabin covered in snow, that falls from the hands of, or the hand, rather, of the dying Kane, and crashes into pieces on the floor. And that we see at another key point, which is in the apartment of his lover, his mistress, Susan Alexander. And so this is wonderful way in which we see these objects at various points in time, but the camera doesn't always privilege them. So we actually seen rosebud in the Colorado scene of his childhood. We don't really see

• 17:16Speaker 06

  it again until it's thrown into a furnace and burnt with some of his less, what seemed to be his less meaningful possessions. And so the film sort of discloses finally the secret only to us, to the spectator, which is again, one of its interesting conceits. I mean, Wells was, in some interviews later, was a little bit withering or about the use of, of rosebud as this-

• 17:37Speaker 05

  Why?

• 17:38Speaker 06

  I think he thought it was a little bit corny. And I think a lot of Citizen Kane is interestingly actually quite corny. And that's what makes it such a compelling film, is I think it flirts with a kind of hamminess around some of its-

• 17:48Speaker 05

  Can you explain that further?

• 17:50Speaker 06

  Well, I think, I think the acting is, is kind of brilliantly over the top. It's, it sounds more like people are playing for radio. And of course, that we're clearly hearing Wells's history in radio.

• 18:00Speaker 05

  Who do you think is playing for radio?

• 18:01Speaker 06

  I think, I think Wells' declamatory style in his performance of Kane-

• 18:04Speaker 05

  But was that the style of Citizen Kane? When he, he shouted because he wanted to be overbearing with everybody?

• 18:09Speaker 06

  Of course. But I think for, for filmgoers, who would have, most of whom I think would have probably heard some of the Mercury Broadcast, the productions for CBS, you know, this voice would have been a familiar voice in the American cultural scene. And so I think there's, I think there's a, something really wonderfully theatrical, and that isn't exactly immediately what we think of as cinematic in the film's handling of actors, or in the way in which Wells handles the actors.

• 18:35Speaker 05

  Seems to work, though.

• 18:36Speaker 06

  Yeah, that's why it works. I mean, I think the closer it draws to theatre, in a way, the more it opens on to a new form of, of the cinematic.

• 18:44Speaker 05

  Stella, what drives Kane? What drives Charles Foster Kane?

• 18:49Speaker 07

  I don't think you can quite say what, what drives him, or it's never quite clear. Rather like rosebud is both an object, but also a kind of state of being and subliminal sense of loss. So there is a motivation there, which it seems to be partly wanting to get back to that lost childhood. Charles Foster Kane has been untimely ripped from, from his childhood. He's not, he doesn't kind of complete childhood. And actually, you know, there's a little echo of Orson Welles's own life there, you know, when his, his mother died young, and he had an alcoholic father, and he describes having to be, being an adult too, too soon. So there's this hankering for that, which is one of the motivations.

• 19:31Speaker 07

  And that partly explains his lack of interest in the money, although there's a fascination with what he can do with it, for example, when he comes into money. And he says at one point, just imagine, I could have been, you know, I could have been a, a very great man if I hadn't been rich. But then we wouldn't have had a film. So he is, he's always going round. There's this dislike of wealth, but there's never a sense of what he would have done. There's a sense, you know, there's the idealism there. He wants to help the disadvantaged. And so his motivation, I think, is to become someone that he was never allowed to find out whether or not he could ever be.

• 20:08Speaker 05

  He's driven. And he, when he gets the money, the only thing he's interested in is setting up newspapers. But he's got $60 million. So if he's a million dollars a year, he loses, he can, he can go for 60 years, he says. And he's the greatest toy a, a boy ever had when he saw the print room. Is that what's driving him? The newspapers? The power the newspapers will give him? Is it the power side?

• 20:28Speaker 07

  I think he thinks it is. But I think there is a real sense of complete emptiness. You know, at the end, when Susan Alexander says she too feels, feels really sorry, yeah, his second wife, that she feels sorry for him. He's very much, he's a kind of unformed, he's a quite two-dimensional. We've talked about the kind of performance. He's, he's quite a two-dimensional character. So he's got this tremendous drive to amass this huge empire. But what you feel, if you're going to look at what that means in terms of psychological motivation, that he amasses this, this empire because there's a kind of vacuum inside. He doesn't actually, he's never happy. You never see him really happy. You see him exuberant

• 21:12Speaker 07

  and vibrant and moving through space, wanting to control. But you never get a sense that that's going to bring him satisfaction. There's always that real tension there between what the money can bring him and the vacuum it can never fill.

• 21:30Speaker 01

  Sometimes we all need an extra helping hand, especially with the tricky business problem you've been putting off. Claude is an AI for just that. It's the collaborator that understands your entire workflow and thinks with you, not for you. And Claude isn't just for quick questions. Hand it a whole task like turning a folder of scattered notes into a report, and it does the work and hands back something finished that you can open and edit. Claude can now draft a doc or deck right in front of you. And Claude Design now lives right inside Claude. Describe the website or prototype you're picturing, attach your design system, and it comes back in your own design language, ready to edit right on the canvas. It works with your files and the tools you already use, like Gmail and Slack. And whether you're debugging code at midnight,

• 22:15Speaker 01

  building a financial model, or strategizing your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter. For problems worth solving, get started with Claude at claude.ai/solve. That's claude.ai/solve. And check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode. Claude.ai/solve.

• 22:40Speaker 02

  Hey, I'm Niall Rogers, producer, songwriter, guitarist, and co-founder of the group Sheik. A great song has a way of defining a moment, a moment of joy, heartbreak, or anything in between. This fall, I'll be driving across the country, dropping in on some of the coolest, most fascinating artists working today. We'll go deep into their lives and careers and hear what it was like before the moment that made them. From hitmakers like Miguel... That last year, finishing that record was the hardest experience of my life, regardless of how everyone else buys into this. I believe in this, and I'm gonna push.

• 23:25Speaker 02

  To rising stars like Alex Warren.

• 23:28Speaker 06

  You know, a song is a story, and the verse is setting the scene. And for me, at least, it's allowing me to be personal and vulnerable with the audience, whether it's about my wife and I'm being vulnerable about her, or it's about, you know, my parents and I'm being vulnerable to them. And it's almost like a cinematic piece in a way where each song tells that beautiful story.

• 23:46Speaker 02

  It's gonna be one hell of a trip. Experience Before the Moment, a Lincoln Original Series on the iHeartRadio app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

• 23:58Speaker 04

  Hey, this is Mario Lopez from All Mario Lopez Daily Podcast. Buy smart, drive for less, and trade for more. That's Toyota affordability. And it starts with a great deal on an all-wheel-drive Camry Corolla Cross or a Corolla sedan with the latest features in tech. Or test drive a spacious Grand Highlander or adventure-ready RAV4. And with so many hybrid models available, you can enjoy longer trips without all the stops, while Toyota's legendary resale value means you could get more at traded. So get a great deal today and great value tomorrow. Shop toyota.com for deals and details. Toyota, let's go places. OnDeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps,

• 24:42Speaker 05

  OnDeck's loans up to $400,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A+ by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five-star TrustPilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes at ondeck.com. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by OnDeck or Celtic Bank. OnDeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

• 25:07Speaker 05

  Ian Christie, we've talked a little bit about the techniques of film. Can you develop it a little?

• 25:12Speaker 00

  Well, it's interesting that really Wells was developing things which were already present in Hollywood production, very shrewdly. I mean, when you consider, we keep coming back to that, he was only 25. He'd never made a film before. His apparent ability to incorporate so many advances that Hollywood films had been making at this time is extraordinary. I mean, he was a fast learner. The story goes that he sat down and watched John Ford's Stagecoach a lot beforehand. So he kind of self-taught himself by looking at recent films, it's a 1939 film, to bring himself up to speed. So what he's doing is using very contrasty photography with Greg Tolan shooting it.

• 25:56Speaker 00

  JD's already mentioned tremendous depth of field. So we're seeing things in the foreground, we're seeing things halfway, and then we're seeing things in the far, far distance, all with startling clarity. And I think you really get a sense of that right at the beginning when we're in the Xanadu, the palace, stuffed full of all the treasures that he's accumulated from all over the world. I mean, this is a real bit of William Randolph Hearst, who did indeed ship castles and antiques of all kinds from Europe to America. But it gives Wells and Tolan a chance to actually show this extraordinary panoply of accumulation, of stuff, just stuff on a monster scale. And as you rightly said at the beginning, it's a rather creepy beginning because it's a Gothic castle.

• 26:40Speaker 00

  It begins in a kind of modern Californian Gothic setting before we go back into the brashness of Kane's rise to power.

• 26:49Speaker 05

  JD, you put your hand up. But before you say what you want to say, can I ask you a question?

• 26:53Speaker 06

  Yes, of course.

• 26:54Speaker 05

  Then it moves to a zapping style of the newsreel. You sort of say, this is, it mimics the newsreels of the time, the fast voices. Is it Kane's way, is it Wells's way? Wells's way and wanting to move the story on very, very quickly and make it exciting?

• 27:13Speaker 06

  I think as a film that first begins twice and then keeps on beginning. And so the first beginning is shrouded in secrecy, darkness, and the mystery of Rosebud. Then the second one is so explanatory. And so there's a kind of tension between two storytelling methods that continues to play out across the film. There's always this aura or this feeling, this ambience of the Gothic, particularly when we return to Xanadu throughout. But then there's this kind of, the thing is driven by investigative news journalism. So it constantly is kind of playing off, I think, those kind of, those two tensions and the narrative style.

• 27:51Speaker 05

  Because you have somebody in the film whose task is to find out what Rosebud stood for.

• 27:56Speaker 06

  Well, I was gonna say that just then brings us to these encounters with these characters. And so it's, you know, we never hear from Kane himself. We only hear from the people who loved him or whom he loved. So he does, I think, as Stella says, remains this kind of omnipresent, but still sort of distant or flat, quote unquote, character.

• 28:14Speaker 07

  I mean, picking up on that, we also, as the audience, have a very privileged position. We see a lot more than Thompson gets from any of his...

• 28:25Speaker 05

  Who's doing the investigation.

• 28:26Speaker 07

  Yeah, and I think that's really crucial. So that's where, having set up the kind of newsreel, this is the story, we instantly know that that's not the full extent of the story from that very first subjective camera at the beginning, that we get much more access into it than that.

• 28:44Speaker 05

  Ian was gonna come in again.

• 28:45Speaker 00

  I was just gonna say that I think radio is an important, you know, component of this new technique. And Wells's experience with radio had given him a sense of how the speed of radio, that you can move very rapidly without having to waste time on setups and so forth, is something that he transfers into the film. So it moves like one of his radio dramas. And that's new for Hollywood. But it's also, of course, the beginning of what the period that we now think of as film noir in Hollywood. And it's a film which anticipates many of the films that have become classics, the detective films, the private eye films, which it's got a sort of film noir-ish feel to it, almost ahead of its time.

• 29:29Speaker 05

  That's a very big point, I think, I hadn't occurred to me. Because it's radio, it can move much faster, JD.

• 29:34Speaker 06

  And one of the things he did on radio was he was hired by CBS to adapt classic works of literature. So for instance, one of the programs was Les Misérables, which is brilliantly condensed. So he was excellent at condensing these great works of literature, which he does kind of brilliantly and often as the narrator himself. So we're hearing him do these kind of brilliantly elliptical, but nonetheless very full tellings of these classic works of literature.

• 30:02Speaker 07

  Yeah, and thinking about radio and what you can do on radio, having described the plot of Citizen Kane within like 15 seconds tells you what Wells announced really with Kane was this is what film can do. That's where I think the cinematography especially comes into its own. You know, it would be nothing without probably the most expressive camera. I mean, he has opened a kind of box of tricks really with that. There's a wonderful production still of him and Tolan literally in the floor, you know, so that the camera is just peeking up. And when Kane has lost the election, the camera is literally at the level of dust. These are things that words cannot convey. And so there's a real split in the film.

• 30:46Speaker 07

  There's the rise of Kane, and then there's his demise. And after that election defeat and after the night when he refuses to be blackmailed, the same uses of the low angle, for example, that had denoted a certain power, a certain potency, become something much more precarious. The use of the low-angle camera starts to signal insecurity, not being able to hold on to things, just about, you know, teetering on the edge. What Wells was really expressing, I think, with his use of the camera was this is what film can do.

• 31:21Speaker 05

  This is his first acting role in film. What do you make of him as an actor?

• 31:27Speaker 06

  I mean, I think he's absolutely brilliant, but it's, there's just this incredible charisma, which of course was what had made his career in the theatre. An amazing voice. He was completely unembarrassed about making himself look unattractive in the period of the film in which he plays the older Charles Foster Kane. At the same time, I would stand by the characterization of this as like being not necessarily the kind of nuanced, psychologically realist performance that one might have expected from a certain type of Hollywood actor in the late 1930s and early 1940s. So I think you feel this larger-than-life theatrical presence. And of course Kane, I think, is making, he's casting everyone around him as supporting characters in a production that he mounts across his life.

• 32:10Speaker 06

  So I think that the performance is incredibly interesting in the way it kind of merges or forces together the radio, the theatre, and this new medium that he's working in, the cinema.

• 32:21Speaker 05

  Do you go along with that, Ian?

• 32:22Speaker 00

  Yes, I mean, it's, it's a film which does indeed merge these aspects of his own experience, and it seems to mark a new moment, I think, in kind of film structure and film grammar. And I think what, what's interesting is to look at the response to, to the film. The response is really interesting. I think there's an early response from filmmakers. And one of the most dramatic examples that I came across is from The Life of David Lean, actually. David Lean was wrestling with Noel Coward, Oprah in Which We Serve, and it wasn't coming out right.

• 32:54Speaker 05

  That was Lean's first film in director, wasn't it?

• 32:55Speaker 00

  Yes, indeed. And he, he knew that Coward didn't really know how to write a film script properly. And Citizen Kane comes out and he sends Coward off to see it. And the result is magic. Coward comes back and says, right, now I understand. This is how to structure the film. And we, we have that well documented, and I think-

• 33:15Speaker 05

  Citizen Kane to In Which We Serve.

• 33:17Speaker 00

  Precisely. Fragment the narrative, distribute, distribute the narration around a number of characters, mix up the chronology, et cetera. Paul and Pressburger were certainly impressed by it, and you can see it in, in The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. There's almost a direct reference to it.

• 33:34Speaker 05

  We mentioned at the beginning, it was mentioned at the beginning, that he brought in actors from the radio. And there's been suggestion, therefore, they were rather wooden and stagey compared with the fluid actors and the unstagey persons who came from, from Hollywood. It's not the case. They didn't seem all that stagey to me. So you're shaking your head, JD.

• 33:51Speaker 06

  Well, I don't, I don't, I wouldn't have described them as wooden. I don't mean that. I just mean, well, I think there's two things. I think there's one, there's the sort of revelation of these people who have not been seen on screen. I think, I think sometimes the vocal performance style is what, that's where you hear some of the residue of the theatre, which I think is an important part of the way that the film blends these, these different media.

• 34:14Speaker 05

  Is that a bad thing?

• 34:15Speaker 06

  Not at all. No, I'm not, yeah, no, I'm, I'm, I'm trying to insist that it's a good thing.

• 34:20Speaker 05

  Good.

• 34:20Speaker 06

  Also, I think, you know, like, why do we insist on this film being so cinematically pure when it's made by this brilliant producer of theatre and radio? And also cinema, the whole point of cinema is an impure medium that is able to cannibalize its sister media. And I think that's what makes it so exciting, is you're kind of seeing these electric sparks as these different media are rubbed up against each other.

• 34:42Speaker 00

  And, and yet, when the film had, you know, part of its major rediscovery from the end of the 50s, really, was in France, and the film was, was celebrated, became a sort of icon of this new kind of ultra cinematic cinema, hailed by French critics because of its use of deep focus, long takes, et cetera. And so it became a sort of icon of pure cinema, and yet, as JD says, it is precisely a mix of these elements, which is what makes it so exciting and makes it so alive for us still today, I think. And yet it became sort of accidentally canonized as something else.

• 35:17Speaker 07

  There was a real sense in, in how, how Wells performs, that he is classically trying, I mean, he's sort of, you know, his kind of diction is amazing. But then there's, and I don't want other people to feel, there's that incredible scene when he trashes Susan's bedroom.

• 35:32Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 35:33Speaker 07

  When it's a single take, it's unpremeditated. He, at one point, you can sort of tell when it happens, hurts his hand really badly because he's throwing everything around the place. And that is so completely spontaneous, when almost nothing else in the film is. And then you suddenly see, that's a complete, that's a totally different register of performance and of being that you, than you've seen anywhere else. And then it goes back to the, what you're familiar with by then, the kind of extraordinary sets, the doorways, but there's this little interlude, which is almost from a different register, from a different movie.

• 36:12Speaker 06

  I mean, that's the moment when he's losing Susan, and, you know, it's, it's-

• 36:16Speaker 05

  Susan is his second wife.

• 36:18Speaker 06

  His second wife.

• 36:18Speaker 05

  She's a woman who has a voice, but she's no opera singer. He tries to force her to become a famous opera singer, builds an opera house for her, tries to bribe the critics, fails in one particular way disastrously, and so on.

• 36:31Speaker 06

  Yeah, so she's the-

• 36:32Speaker 05

  And then she leaves, which is the language part of the film.

• 36:35Speaker 06

  He suffered the death of his, I mean, not the death, he suffered the loss of his mother. He voluntarily gave up his first wife, and now there's this, this unbearable loss that he's experiencing in that moment. So there's, that moment, it kind of, he's at his most psychologically three-dimensional in a sense, although there seems to only be one emotion that is being registered. But there is a really powerful realism in that moment, in that particular scene. Also, in this, like, the destruction of the set that we're watching happen right, right in front of our eyes.

• 37:02Speaker 05

  Sean, you want to say something?

• 37:03Speaker 00

  But I, I think that, I think the moment when he and Susan first meet is also a really interesting kind of still point in the film. And I think it's full of these moments that depart from its kind of through line of very operatic setups. When he meets Susan in the street and she invites him upstairs, and there's a kind of naturalism about it. It's a very interesting moment. There's, he's not performing, he's not acting, he's reacting. And it's one of the very few moments in the film, I think, where there is a kind of sense of real rapport, because most of the time, he's not listening to anybody. Here he is really connecting with Susan, and you feel that there's something real between them at that moment.

• 37:45Speaker 05

  Stella?

• 37:46Speaker 07

  And going back to the things we were saying earlier, one of the reasons that he falls in love with Susan, I'm sure, is that she doesn't know who he is. You know, he's surprised by this, but kind of her ignorance and the fact that then you notice, as JD was saying, retrospectively, that the snow globes on her dressing table, you realize that actually it's part of that that has really attracted, that really attracts him to her, and, you know, that he can be himself. Sorry, that's a bit corny, but-

• 38:15Speaker 00

  No, well, it is corny, because it's something that could have come out of, I don't know, a 19th century story. Rich man, unnoticed, picks up street girl.

• 38:25Speaker 05

  Do you think that's only a 19th century story?

• 38:27Speaker 00

  No, it's a much older story.

• 38:29Speaker 05

  And much younger story.

• 38:30Speaker 00

  It's a, it's a corny element which he manages to suffuse with a new kind of magic.

• 38:36Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 38:36Speaker 06

  That moment is also much later in the film, in what is the breakup scene that precedes the, the scene in which Susan departs. The scene where they go on this bizarre camping trip, and they're in this, this tent, and Susan, I guess, performs the, the final cycle analysis of Kane. She says, you know, you've, you want people to love you, and so you try to buy them, you try to possess them in some way. But it's at that moment where, in this earlier meeting, where it feels like there's a genuine connection, and that's what's so touching, also just about the naturalism of that set. Unlike Xanadu, which is a Gothic set, this is 19th century realism.

• 39:12Speaker 05

  He says emphatically now and then that he's an American, probably an American. Does that signify, I mean, it means what he says, obviously, but does it matter much?

• 39:21Speaker 06

  I mean, that was the original title of the screenplay, as it was being developed by himself and made of it. I think just calling it The American, it put too much emphasis on the allegorical, probably, although Citizen Kane has a kind of opacity as a potential kind of allegorical title, but I think there would have been maybe something too heavy-handed about that that would have forced a reading in a particular way. And I think what the film does so brilliantly is it constantly is balancing our interest in this fictional character and wanting to know him, and our sense that we're also following an interesting analysis of capitalist American values in the 1930s and 1940s.

• 40:02Speaker 05

  We know that his film did okay in America. Manol Hirst tried to stop it in its tracks by not letting him be shown in the cinemas he owned, which were numerous. His writers writing against it and so on and so forth. But it took off later, you say, the end of the 50s, in Europe. What was it that actually made it take off in the way it did? Because it really took off.

• 40:22Speaker 00

  Can I scroll back a little bit?

• 40:23Speaker 05

  By all means.

• 40:25Speaker 00

  There's a lot of mythology about the film, you know, that that Hearst tried to stop it. Well, yes, he did. He used his newspapers. What happened was that MGM, Lowe's, who owned the theatres for MGM, tried to buy the film off Arceo. They offered them a lot of money. But Arceo stuck to their guns. The cinema owners wouldn't show the film because they were worried about Hearst retaliating through his newspapers. So there's a kind of very complicated power struggle going on.

• 40:55Speaker 05

  It doesn't seem very complicated, and if you do that, we aren't showing in my films. That isn't very complicated.

• 41:00Speaker 00

  It's more that they were anticipating that Hearst would have it in for them.

• 41:03Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 41:04Speaker 00

  It's a very strange kind of process. Anyway, the film did get seen, obviously. Of course, it's been made during the war. Americas in the war. There are certain places the film doesn't go. And so when, for instance, American films from this period suddenly arrive in Europe after the war, it's like a revelation. Well, Britain has seen the films, but especially in France, where suddenly this great logjam of American films arrives and it blows away French critics who are very attuned to what's happening in Hollywood. So the film's reputation begins to build in the late 40s and through the 50s. And what's really interesting is that by the end of the 50s, it has become everyone's greatest American film, if not the greatest film of all time.

• 41:48Speaker 05

  Is that an accretion, Stella, or do you think that's something that was waiting to be revealed?

• 41:53Speaker 07

  There were critics getting behind it. I think there was a sense in which, as Ian said, there was a kind of European quality to it, i.e. style conveying narrative meaning, which I think made it seem like a kind of much more intellectual work of art, let's say, as opposed to just entertainment. And I think that that that sense of it built as more and more people saw it and as they saw, not just as Ian said, you know, that it kind of led to film noir perhaps, or it has that tendency, but it also, it definitely captures German expressionist cinema from the 1920s. There's a sense in which there's a richness to it, which by narrowing it, narrowing the focus down

• 42:36Speaker 07

  to was it or was it not a portrait of William Randolph Hearst, suddenly people saw that there was much more to it. And those were the critics, they were the French critics from the 50s, who basically made that case.

• 42:49Speaker 05

  JD, no, can JD come in now?

• 42:51Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, the thing that I think is so important about what both Stella and Ian are saying, is that it has this kind of delayed appearance on the European scene. And interestingly, it appears alongside neorealism. So it's, and it's the French critics are responding to Kane at the same time that they're seeing Rossellini's Paes, or Germany Year Zero at the same time. So it has this, its reception, its delayed reception allows it to be received at the same time as what was felt to be the newest of new cinemas coming out of Europe, and interestingly, coming out of Italy, given it's, you know, emerging out of 20 years of fascism. So this reception, and I guess, I don't know if this is too specific, but the main critic who I think really

• 43:36Speaker 06

  creates the fortunes for this is a man named Andre Bazin, who goes on to write a small book on Wells, which is full of all kinds of interesting factual errors, actually. But it's really Bazin who, in a sense, I think bestows more than any other critic, gives the film its, and draws attention, gives it its world historical significance and draws attention in particular to its cinematography and in particular this depth of focus and these low angle shots that we've been talking about.

• 44:02Speaker 05

  Stella, what do you think the film did for cinema as an art form in Europe and so on?

• 44:08Speaker 07

  It actually suggested, it actually made the case for cinema as art, which, which for kind of-

• 44:14Speaker 05

  Another film's not done that?

• 44:16Speaker 07

  Hollywood films, much less. You know what I mean? I do think that there was a sense in which commercial cinema was that it's a false dichotomy between commercial cinema and art cinema. But I think what Kane did was to say you can be both. I mean, obviously commercially it wasn't that successful, but it was a big, it was a studio movie. And with that came a real European sensibility, which was that, you know, film was there to be intellectually engaging, psychologically engaging, complex. When you finish watching Citizen Kane, you can't but want to go back and to see whether you've missed things.

• 44:57Speaker 07

  And so there's that sense of it as something rather like a great painting, rather like a great cenata, that every time you go back to it, you pick out and you learn something new.

• 45:08Speaker 05

  We're coming to the end now, Ian, what?

• 45:10Speaker 00

  I think there's another component of the, you know, the enormous reputation that the film has by by the beginning of the 60s certainly. And that's the fact that Wells himself had become an outcast. And Wells was seen as a sort of sacrificial goat. He's a man who had risked everything, made the film he wanted to make, and after that, he never had control of a film again. So the fact that it was a downwards slope from this point onwards, they took-

• 45:36Speaker 05

  He made some good films then, after that?

• 45:38Speaker 00

  He made some great films, but they were made with compromises. They were edited against his wishes. His next film, The Magnificent Ambersons, was butchered while he was away on a promotional tour.

• 45:49Speaker 05

  But was Touch of Evil, for example, butchered or Third Man and so on?

• 45:52Speaker 00

  No, Third Man, he acted, of course, rather wonderfully and wrote his own scenes and so forth.

• 45:58Speaker 05

  But one assumes he had more.

• 45:59Speaker 00

  No, but I think it's important, this sort of sense, and it plays up what Stella was saying. He is seen as somebody who Hollywood has spat out. Hollywood can't cope with Wells and therefore that makes him a potential hero figure to some extent in Europe, because he's somebody who has shown what it can achieve, what Hollywood can achieve, but has then been rejected. That helps the reputation of Citizen Kane as the film, the one film that was his shining achievement.

• 46:26Speaker 05

  You want to come in?

• 46:27Speaker 06

  I just, the other place that we could think about the film is, you know, it's very much a narrative film that is about narrative. And I think it is the Hollywood film that more than any other assumes its place alongside Faulkner, Dos Passos, and the other experimenters with narrative and narration in this period. So suddenly we have a Hollywood film that has the same aesthetic significance as the modernist novel. So I think that's also the other context that we haven't really discussed is the context of the literary, because Wells is obviously just absolutely saturated, immersed in both the European and the American literary tradition and has collaborated with some of the major literary figures of his day. So I think that's one of its, I think, and I think particularly on the experiment with narration

• 47:11Speaker 06

  is where that affinity comes most into view.

• 47:14Speaker 07

  It's such a shame that Kane had the troubled history it did. I mean, also Wells himself didn't like really talking about the effect it had on his career. He basically sort of said it was sort of downhill from that point that he spent, I think he describes at one point that throughout his career, 98% hustler, you know, hustler, 2% filmmaker, that he couldn't actually do what he wanted to do. He was begging for money. Yes, people did. I mean, you know, Touch of Evil was fantastic film, though it was, it was edited by someone else and then we get the director's cut much later. This real genius who did these amazing Shakespeare productions, for example, and, you know,

• 47:59Speaker 07

  was effectively silent so much at the time.

• 48:02Speaker 05

  Finally, yeah.

• 48:03Speaker 00

  It's an astonishing survivor as a film, isn't it? Because although it had this troubled start and it was canonized as the greatest film in the world in a poll in 1962, and it stayed there for 40 years. And it's still a reference point. There was another poll just recently when it's still number three. This is an extraordinary survival. And I think it is an astonishing film. It's a very modern film. And I think JD is absolutely right when he compares it with modernist American literature. At last, here was a film coming out of America, which seemed to be the equal of the great American modernist writers.

• 48:41Speaker 05

  Well, thank you all very much indeed. Thank you, Stella Mutti, John David Rhodes and Ian Christie, and our studio engineer Jackie Margeram. Next week, Jane Olsen's novel Persuasion, her last and some argue her best. Thanks for listening.

• 48:59Speaker 05

  Extra time now with a few minutes of bonus material from Melvyn and his guests. Would you mind talking more about it?

• 49:06Speaker 00

  Extra.

• 49:09Speaker 05

  Yes, extra time. Read all about it.

• 49:12Speaker 07

  The representation of women is, I mean, Susan, the opera scenes, she's made to look like a grotesque gargoyle and with everyone laughing at her and it's painful to watch.

• 49:26Speaker 05

  But isn't it supposed to be painful?

• 49:27Speaker 07

  It is supposed to be painful, but there's little redemption. I feel that it's a very masculine, it's a very gendered film, it's very male, and I just feel that there is a sense.

• 49:38Speaker 05

  Let's go back to Susan. She can't sing, she's got a voice, but she can't sing grand opera.

• 49:43Speaker 07

  Florence Foster Jenkins, she's not as bad as, anyway.

• 49:45Speaker 06

  She, it is, it does allow us, I think it gives an opportunity for her to stage her resistance and she does leave, which is something a lot of women don't do and didn't do. I mean, in that sense, I mean, we clearly see his sadism as sadism. It doesn't mean it's pleasant to watch when he's basically putting her in this abusive situation, but you feel like, I think, we don't identify with him in that position, we identify with her, I think.

• 50:11Speaker 00

  And that's, I mean, if the core of the film psychologically is that the young Charles Kane has been taken from his mother, he's got two very troubled relationships with his, his first wife, who is a social success, as it were, and is not in tune with his thrusting ambition. I think one of the great sequences in the film is the disintegration of their marriage. They whip pans that show us their breakfast meetings getting shorter and shorter and shorter, and it's a brilliant passage, and it's echoed in a way, filmically, by the great scene of Susan's humiliation when we see her on stage in this opera that's

• 50:54Speaker 00

  been concocted for her, and the camera just goes up and up and up and up and up into the flies and we see the stagehands looking down and shaking their heads.

• 51:05Speaker 05

  And holding their noses.

• 51:06Speaker 00

  Holding their noses. These are two of the greatest cinematic moments, I think, in the film, and they're actually about his inability to form constructive, proper relationships with women. I mean, you could say, and Laura Mulvey has argued this in her book on the film, you could say that that's the whole issue. The issue is that he, having been taken from his mother, he can never form a proper relationship with a woman again, and we see two very improper relationships, two unsatisfactory, botched relationships.

• 51:35Speaker 07

  Despite the fact that when he starts with Susan, you, you do have hope there because.

• 51:40Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 51:41Speaker 07

  There is the link back to the mother and.

• 51:44Speaker 06

  It's interesting, when you do have hope, it begins again as realism, you know, it doesn't begin, you know, so it establishes like this very kind of familiar texture. The, the decoration and the set design of her apartment is so perfectly naturalistic, and so it seems like, you know, aha, like it's going to be the everydayness of this life that might give rise to a better version of the story that's been told so far. And then, of course, it collapses back into the Gothic again.

• 52:13Speaker 00

  You mentioned the art direction. I think the one thing that never gets the credit that it deserves, and this came out only very, very late in, you know, the history, people writing about the film, trying to find out what really happened. We now know that the art director was Perry Ferguson. His name has never been much discussed.

• 52:30Speaker 05

  Why not?

• 52:31Speaker 00

  There's a tradition in Hollywood that the head of the art department got their name on every film, so that the, the formal name on the film is the name of someone who didn't play any part in the making of the film at all. It's an old tradition in Hollywood. It's really difficult to find out who actually designed the set, who did the drawings, and even more difficult to find out who was the set decorator, because the set decoration, you've picked out that, the scene in Susan's room, the set decoration throughout is spectacular, unbelievable. It's a film of objects, it's a film of decor, many, many decors, and that has never been properly celebrated. It's all seen as down to Wells. Wells didn't put those things there, he had a fabulous art department, ready and willing to answer his wishes.

• 53:15Speaker 07

  Yes, because there's that, I mean, one of the things that the, you know, Susan's bedroom in Xanadu, it's so different from the monumental Xanadu elsewhere. It's so feminine in the sense that it's very small, you feel, you know, the ceiling seems artificially low, it's crammed full of objects, and then for that all to be trashed, it's a really interesting moment, so you think, no, this is actually a room that's breathing, you know, that's got life in it, the others are so artificial. And yes, you're right, Ian, that there is such precision, I can't think of a moment in, in Kane when something seems to jar, or something you think, they should have

• 53:57Speaker 07

  done that a bit more carefully, they should have, especially when it comes to decor sets, there is such thought has gone into every single moment.

• 54:06Speaker 06

  One of the ways it kept a budget, because as Ian's pointed out, it's the, it's mythical that it, that it overran its budget and that Wells was undisciplined in pecuniary matters, because actually it was fairly well kept. And one of the ways it did that was through set design and through the very clever reuse of all kinds of sets from other productions at RKO. So when you're seeing Xanadu, and you often, if you look closely, you'll see that, sort of towards the back of the scene, there'll suddenly be a bunch of drapes, or it'll sort of just, the image kind of goes into a kind of unreadable obscurity, and that's where there's just this kind of clever use of cinematography and a reuse of props and sets that allows for it to mount this image of scale that didn't actually exist.

• 54:51Speaker 06

  So that's another way, it's not only kind of, sort of exquisite, it was also financially very clever and was crucial to its, you know.

• 55:01Speaker 00

  And that was the one thing that Wells hadn't had experience of doing, because if you look at the pictures of his famous productions, they're really quite sort of monumental, they're not, they're, they're spectacular theatre in the 30s style, they're not full of detail, and this was new, he had to fill the frame with detail, and my goodness, he does fill the frame with detail, this is what makes the film so fascinating. To see it on a big screen is, is to really appreciate that, that fantastic sort of fetishistic preoccupation with decor. The decor is telling us what is happening to Kane at every stage in the film.

• 55:33Speaker 07

  Yeah, there's an incredible shot, isn't there? Oh, what, there's an image of him in that fireplace, the biggest fireplace.

• 55:40Speaker 00

  Fireplace, yes, the fireplace.

• 55:42Speaker 07

  You know, dwarfed by this, and, you know, up until that point, he's been big.

• 55:46Speaker 06

  The mouth of Moloch or something.

• 55:47Speaker 07

  Yeah, you know, but there's the extraordinary cockatoo, I think you want to talk, you suddenly think, this is a completely different film.

• 55:53Speaker 06

  That whole sequence is, is so wild, actually, like, literally, I mean, and not only you have this close up of the cockatoo, and that's where I feel like, I was thinking about the film as being so, it must be so important to Lynch, I mean, it's a kind of Mulhall and Drive, with this strange over-large presence of creatures, objects, and then you have a real cockatoo screeching in incredible close up that begins that sequence, but then, as the scene goes, the sequence goes on, there are these wonderful, absolutely clearly artificial birds flying that are produced through optical printing, flying in the background of the jazz band, and so it wants you to feel so powerfully its own artifice at key

• 56:38Speaker 06

  moments, and I, you know, and it's really, I think that's also a way in which Wells is allowing everyone in a way to get their due, even if the credits don't completely testify to that, he wants you to see the work that goes into producing a Hollywood film.

• 56:52Speaker 07

  And he wants us to, the people watching. That's what's so amazing, is that it's the dialogue between the film and Wells and us. You know, it's not just about the plot, but it's saying, I want you to be in dialogue with me, to be picking up on these things, not quite knowing what they mean.

• 57:09Speaker 05

  Did he lose your affection? Did you have any affection for him at the beginning?

• 57:12Speaker 07

  No, I, I think Kane, actually, because he feels so lost, I mean, in the scene when Susan's left him and he trashes the bedroom, he doesn't just lose it, he's also completely lost, he's stumbling around, and actually, just when you want to hate him most, you actually feel the most pity for him and the most sympathy for him.

• 57:34Speaker 05

  Absolutely, it's a real, it's a real demonstration of anguish, isn't it?

• 57:37Speaker 07

  Yeah.

• 57:38Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 57:39Speaker 07

  And he had to then walk.

• 57:40Speaker 05

  He realizes what he's lost, and what he has lost.

• 57:42Speaker 07

  When it's, when it's, when it's too late, you know.

• 57:45Speaker 05

  Yeah.

• 57:46Speaker 07

  Great melodrama moment.

• 57:47Speaker 00

  It is a melodrama too. It's a deconstructed melodrama.

• 57:50Speaker 06

  Yeah. I mean, that, it's, it's spoken to, the thing that I think is funny is that if anyone heard rosebud, it would be that nurse, but it seems like the nurse is coming in, I mean, unless, you know, it's sort of like who, that word is spoken to us more than it's spoken to anyone, and actually, part of the whole conceit of the film is that someone would have ever heard this, but if you actually, what the film offers us evidence of is actually the nurse coming in after that word's already been uttered, so if it doesn't really quite explain how we even know that this was his last word, so the whole thing hinges on a kind of impossibility.

• 58:30Speaker 07

  Yes, and there's the, yeah, and there's the close up of the mouth, so it is to us.

• 58:34Speaker 06

  It's just to us, so we want to know, and then, and then we do, funnily enough, we get to know, but by knowing what rosebud is, we kind of don't know anything, I mean, that's, the other thing I think is just, the film ends and begins in the same way, so it's, I think we have to see it as a chiasmus, and I was trying to think of other films that do like that, that come full circle or reflections of themselves, yeah.

• 58:58Speaker 05

  I think opera producers long to burst through the door, fine.

• 59:01Speaker 00

  Does anyone want tea or coffee? One piece got to go.

• 59:06Speaker 05

  I'll have tea, please.

• 59:07Speaker 00

  I've got an opera to go to.

• 59:08Speaker 06

  I'll have a tea and then I'll have to screw up, yeah.

• 59:10Speaker 00

  Pretty tea.

• 59:11Speaker 05

  What do you want, tea?

• 59:12Speaker 00

  No, I wouldn't, no. No? Okay, thanks very much.

• 59:15Speaker 04

  Thank you for listening to this archive episode of In Our Time. Every Monday, I revisit one of more than a thousand episodes in our archive, and on Thursdays, you'll still find brand new episodes of In Our Time. Listen first on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

• 59:34Speaker 00

  This Cultural Life from BBC Radio 4.

• 59:37Speaker 07

  I will never go into anything so deep like that again.

• 59:39Speaker 00

  The world's leading artistic figures reveal their creative influences. Disobey, disagree, disavow. I'm John Wilson, and my recent guests have included the sculptor Anish Kapoor, photographer Annie Leibowitz, the actor Kristin Scott Thomas. It has made me good at telling stories about people who have a secret suffering. And former children's laureate Frank Cotterill Boyce.

• 1:00:01Speaker 02

  If art's got one function, it's to point to what's wonderful and say, look, this is your world, it's insane.

• 1:00:07Speaker 00

  Listen to This Cultural Life on BBC Sounds.

• 1:00:15Speaker 03

  Sometimes we all need an extra helping hand, especially with a tricky business problem you've been putting off. Claude is the AI for just that. It's the collaborator that understands your entire workflow and thinks with you, not for you, and Claude isn't just for quick questions. Hand it a whole task, like turning a folder of scattered notes into a report, and it does the work and hands back something finished that you can open and edit. Claude can now draft a doc or deck right in front of you, and Claude design now lives right inside Claude. Describe the website or prototype you're picturing, attach your design system, and it comes back in your own design language, ready to edit right on the canvas.

• 1:00:56Speaker 03

  It works with your files and the tools you already use, like Gmail and Slack, and whether you're debugging code at midnight, building a financial model, or strategizing your next business move, Claude extends your thinking to tackle the problems that matter. For problems worth solving, get started with Claude at claude.ai/solve. That's claude.ai/solve. And check out Claude Pro, which includes access to all of the features mentioned in today's episode. Claude.ai/solve.