Talk:Citizen Kane

Continued top-film recognition

Noted as "Greatest Film Ever" in ... "1 Citizen Kane". Entertainment Weekly. July 5/12 2013. p. 30. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)

Peer Review

Citizen Kane

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it appears to be in very good shape and is obviously an important page in the Films category. I have not personally edited it but I would like to see the ball rolling on it. I would suggest a Peer Review that is specifically geared towards FA status and that gives suggestions to improving the article for any users who see the page. I would also suggest adding any maintenance tags within the body of the article. I may work on this page in the future but I would imagine that I'm not alone there so we might as well set things up for anyone to improve this article.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

For starters, you could fix the Citation Needed templates and the refs followed by unsourced chunks of text. igordebraga ≠ 01:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

{{doing}} Ping me if I have't responded in a day or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Overall, it's a fairly solid base, but from my eyes it needs some hefty work to get to FA.
  • The lead section seems to jump around a lot; ideally, it should mirror the actual structure of the article, so it's odd that it goes into details about its accolades and impact, then jumps back to its premise, development, and initial reception (and then more impact.)
  • On the subject of media: File:Citiza kane.jpg doesn't seem to significantly add to the article per WP:NFCC; the same goes for File:Rosebud-Pine.jpg. File:Writing Kane.JPG does not give any evidence the photo was published without a copyright notice and thus is in the public domain. File:Citizen Kane deep focus.jpg is too poor and low-res an image to actually convey the focus aspect of the shot, thus is doesn't seem an effective fair-use case.
  • There's a lot of unsourced content throughout, both expressly tagged with {{cn}} and that which isn't. Among the major sections:
    • The home release info, including details on transfer and dates of releases
    • Bits of Hearst's response sound a bit sensationalist (particularly the closing paragraph)
  • Some content is apparently duplicated (such as the offer to buy off the print from RKO, which is mentioned in the "pre-release controversy" section and again in the "Hearth's response" section immediately after.)
  • What does this line mean at the end of the special effects section? A loud, full-screen closeup of a typewriter typing a single word ("weak"), magnifies the review for the Chicago Inquirer.
  • I'd say the article relies a bit too much on large amounts of block quotes instead of summarizing and paraphrasing the content.
  • As is often the issue with these sections, the "Popular culture" section is a mess. Auctions aren't really "pop culture", and a random reference to The Simpsons doesn't make a coherent section. It needs to be expanded and clarified or cut altogether.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Citizen Kane a "satire"?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close of this RfC and transfer of content to the talk page of the article on the Hearst Castle. Discussion shall continue there. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

---

The film is denoted in the article as a "drama". Can it be, instead, characterized as a "satire"? -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• RfC background: The status quo in Kane denotes the film as a "drama." In the opening section of the Hearst Castle article, however, the film is denoted as "satire." A dispute arose between another editor and myself on whether the word "satire" is appropriate and sufficient to denote the film. Hence, and after a few reverts, this RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from KJP1

I'm unsure why The Gnome has chosen to start an RfC here, at Citizen Kane, rather than at Hearst Castle, but I'll post my comments in both for ease.

The disagreement between us arose over the use of the word “satirized” in the fourth paragraph of the lead of the Hearst Castle article. The Gnome suggests “evoked” would be more appropriate. My thinking regarding the use of the word goes something like:

• Multiple RS describe Citizen Kane as a satire, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][[8]]
• They do so because CK does satirize Hearst/Kane, and his wife/mistress Susan/Marion, amongst others. Hearst’s avarice/Davies’ alcoholism are obvious instances. It also accounts for Hearst’s reaction to the film;
• "Evoking", The Gnome's preferred term, has a rather different, and more benign, meaning;
• I haven't attempted any major analysis of the film in the Hearst Castle article, but have referenced it in relation to Hearst and his life at the house. I do not understand The Gnome's suggestion that I have sought to "denote" the film as a satire, what I have actually done is say that, in the film, Welles satirises Hearst. I have no wish to alter the coverage of the film given in this article, and have no issue with the description used here, a "drama film";
• I do note, however, that this article uses the term in question: "The News on the March sequence that begins the film satirizes the journalistic style of The March of Time" (my emphasis);
• The Gnome appears to take the view that satire is a cheap/debased genre, “merely a satire”. It actually has a long and impressive pedigree, going back to classical texts.

Very pleased of course to discuss and see if a consensus can be reached. Although I would reiterate, I haven't made, and don't propose to make, any change to this article. KJP1 (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The obvious reason the talk page of the film Citizen Kane has been chosen for the RfC is that the RfC concerns the nature and assessment of the film - and not the Hearst Castle at all. That's just to respond to the question posed by KJP1 at the beginning of their comment. For more on my view, I'll be posting here separately. -The Gnome (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The Gnome - I’m afraid I am finding your comments increasingly incomprehensible. We disagreed on one word in the lead to the article on Hearst Castle. You’ve now raised an RfC on this article, Citizen Kane, But I’ve made no comment on, or amendment to this article and don’t intend to. It is not at all “obvious” to me what you are wanting to achieve by this RfC. If it’s an amendment to this article, nothing’s been changed. If it’s an alteration to Hearst Castle, why are we having a discussion here? KJP1 (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Jack Sebastian

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

Very much appreciate the input and it’s helpful to have a range of views. As an aside, this suggests that Welles certainly saw comedic aspects to the film.[9] For me, and I’ve seen it about as many times as you, there are some very humorous aspects to it. And personally, I think it retains a startling relevance, 80-odd years on. Murdoch, Succession, Trump? But you’re right; these are opinions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment from The Gnome

I've always supported the notion of Wikipedia as reflecting sources rather than arbitrary input. It is an attribute that keeps the project from deteriorating into a ideological battleground, directly and indirectly.

With this clarifying statement out of the way, I should think it'd be obvious that my disagreement about characterizing Citizen Kane as a "satire" is not based in the slightest on my personal opinion on the film, an opinion which I did not divulge at any time. I happen to have read in my time a rather significant amount of literature on film, including film criticism, and thus I happen to be able to recall and invoke sources in support of my disagreement. A task I honestly did not believe I'd ever undertake since there is a veritable avalanche of texts about Kane in which the film's main characteristic is never satire. This is actually close to a "the sky is blue" kind of statement, in the field of film studies, one that's practically self-evident. But there will always be objections, even to the self-evident! Possibly not an altogether bad thing.

KJP1 continues to believe that Kane is satire ("Multiple RS describe Citizen Kane as a satire"). A quick forensics on KJP1's sources actually dispenses rather easily with that belief. What comes off the texts is the fact that the film contains satire but it is far from being a satirical film:

The Sydney Morning Herald review says "Kane is a satire on Hearst himself" but note absence of italics - that's about the character of Kane and not the film. The film, the review, says, is "a journey from innocence to corruption through the ages", "equal parts tragedy and tawdry political opera", "a comedy shot like a horror movie", and so on. (That review is really about the grand lie perpetrated by Pauline Kael, and brought to screen by David Fincher, but Kane gets its share of light.) The Criterion piece contains the word "satire" but, again, the notion is used about the person and not the film ("Kane gives us the definitive satire of a certain American type, it also depicts that type with a fascinating ambivalence, using Freud as much as Marx to understand him"), a film that it describes as "an explosion of form, combining effects and techniques and stylistic flourishes from the preceding decades of film-making (and coming up with several of its own), all in service to an audience-unfriendly downer of a story that offers no uplifting messages or clear moral vision...the peak achievement of Hollywood’s golden age and a rebuke of it — the work of an auteur thumbing his nose at the studio system even as he took full advantage of the resources it provided him". Hardly a satire, this.

What's accessible from the DeGruyter blog has Kane as the "the first American mainstream art film," "a coy investigation into the life career, and politics of Hearst, and so to dramatize the relations among capitalism, power, sex, and modern mass media in America." No "satire" in sight. The Columbia Daily Tribune text contains no "satire" either. Catherine Benamou's book Citizen Kane offers us one more text where the author refers to "the perceived cinematic satire of Hearst and his paramour Marion Davies" and goes on to shower t the film itself with major accolades for its artistic and technical achievements, nowhere denoting it as a "satire."

And we come to the infamous Pauline Kael The New Yorker 1971 article on the film. She did not like it. (It is "is closer to comedy than to tragedy". "The mystery in Kane is largely fake". "It isn’t a work of special depth or a work of subtle beauty. It is a shallow work." Etc.) In any case, Kael used the word "satire" in her article twice. The first time to explain why Hollywood became "suspicious" of Welles: "When you write straight reporting about the motion-picture business, you’re writing satire. Motion-picture executives prefer to do business with men whose values they understand. As soon as movies became Welles’ passion, and he was willing to work on any terms, he was finished in the big studios—they didn’t trust him." And the second is to put the film in context in the tradition of vaudevillian comedy: "To use the conventional schoolbook explanations for greatness, and pretend that [the film]'s profound, is to miss what makes it such an American triumph—that it manages to create something aesthetically exciting and durable out of the playfulness of American muckraking satire."
Roger Ebert used the word "parody" to denote Welles' use of the concept of the March of Time in Kane. But satire is closely related to but not equal to parody. And Ebert does not make any claim for either "satire" or "parody" for the film itself, in total.

In fact, the only source that has been unearthed claiming straight forwardly that "Kane is primarily a satire" is this personal blog created by a rather unknown "film writer" who writes for the magazine Reverse shot. Should we take this level of obscurity in as evidence? Are even the totality of sources offered strong enough to have us change Kane from drama to satire? I think not. -The Gnome (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Setting to one side the fact that I have never suggested we change anything in this article, as it's been dealt with very fully in User:Snow Rise's comments below; you write: "What comes off the texts is the fact that the film contains satire". As you acknowledge this, I'm more puzzled than ever as to the point you are trying to make. If I had written, in this article or elsewhere, something like, "Citizen Kane is a satire and nothing but a satire", you may just about have had a point. But what I wrote was; "Hearst, his castle and his lifestyle were satirized by Orson Welles in his 1941 film Citizen Kane" and you have acknowledged that is exactly what the sources say. And, had your "forensic" been a little less "quick", you'd have seen more instances. You claim, for example, that the Columbia Daily News article "contains no satire". How about the last line of its 15th paragraph: "Welles, in his satire, wanted Hearst to see that his demise was staring at him from the screen"? Or the De Gruyter article: "In its disguised satire of Hearst, Citizen Kane fragments, objectifies, and, so to speak, psychoanalyzes the prototypical biopic subject of the 1930s"? KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this needs to be moved...

(Summoned by bot). Sorry The Gnome, but at least on this procedural issue, you are wrong and KJP1 is right: if the content issue you are proposing to solve relates to Hearst Castle, and does not involve any suggested or actual change to this article, then this discussion needs to take place on the Hearst Castle talk page. Putting aside the obvious practical reasons an unambiguous status quo of process in this respect, this fact is also expressly covered in policy, such as at WP:TPG, the first sentence of which reads "The purpose of an article's talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article" and notes under the how to use article talk pages subsection that "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." (emphasis in original).

Further, this is more than a purely bureaucratic concern: questions on content and how to form it from sourcing are highly dependent upon context, and hosting this discussion here and being unclear about what change exactly we are addressing highly confuses the relevant editorial issues, complicates any consensus that might result, and would obfuscate the record for anyone addressing the same issue in the future. Unless you believe there are issues impacting this article's discussion of Hearst or any other subject (and it seems obvious from KJP1's comments that no such edits are being contemplated), the appropriate place to have this discussion is on a talk page for an article that actually would be impacted by the discussion.

That said, my opinion of the editorial issue itself (and someone can feel free to ping me to reiterate this if and when the discussion does get moved) is that describing the movie as satire is probably not WP:DUE in the vast majority of cases. Again, context is king, but if I understand the language and location being debated here, it does not seem appropriate. Most but probably not all of the sources KJP1 references above qualify as WP:RS, but of those, only two (or arguably three) actually call the film a satire. The others use the word "satire" in syntactic and semantic forms which do not, in my opinion, directly support labeling the film as such in a fashion which does not require some degree of WP:Synthesis. However, even if all eight sources unambiguously called the film a satire, and all eight were to be regarded as high-quality RS, it would still be a questionable call to use that label, especially in an off-hand reference on an article only tangentially related to the subject, devoid of substantial discussion of the themes of the film. Ultimately this is a matter of WP:WEIGHT: Citizen Kane is one the most heavily discussed films in the history of critical review of the medium, and the vast, vast majority of coverage does not use this label to describe the subject in brief, as the suggested edit on Hearst Castle seems to propose to do.

Now ironically enough, I would actually support some discussion in this article about the role satire may have played in Welles' intentions (short of actually labeling the film "a satire" in Wikivoice) because there does seem to be an agreement in at least a significant number of sources that there was a conscious effort to lampoon Hearst. And if there is ultimately a debate about whether to include such commentary (and what form it should take) in the Citizen Kane article, obviously this would be the place to have that discussion. But placing that descriptor, unqualified, in the lead, would probably not be appropriate, for example. As such, using the label off-hand in a completely different article without that context is even more problematic. Again, please feel free to let me know if the discussion gets relaunched at the Hearst Castle talk page and I will reprise or amend my comments there, as appropriate to that discussion and the precise edits being debated. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Snow Rise - Absolutely agree. I did attempt to start the discussion at Talk:Hearst Castle, but User:The Gnome insisted on raising it here. Like you, I'm happy to continue the discussion back at Hearst Castle, should The Gnome choose to relaunch their RfC there. But, as we've already expended quite a lot of ink over one word, and in the interests of collaborative editing, I'd also be very open to changing the single word in dispute. The sentence at Hearst Castle reads: "Hearst, his castle and his lifestyle were satirized by Orson Welles in his 1941 film Citizen Kane." How about replacing "satirized" with, for example; "lampooned" / "caricatured" / "pilloried" / "parodied" / "mocked" / "derided" / "ridiculed"? Other editors will come up with more, and likely better, suggestions. I don't think The Gnome's preference, "evoked", is quite right, as that suggests a more benign intent than Welles had, or than Hearst perceived. KJP1 (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Can we know the "intent Welles had"? Well, the next best thing to something written by Welles is Welles speaking his mind about the subject of his film. In this video clip from an interview on the Dick Cavett show, Welles stated unambiguously, "[the character Kane] was not really about him [Hearst]; it was made about a lot of people." Which does not allow for much specific, personal satire of real persons like Hearst. We have a character in the film, Kane, the major character, being presented through a plethora of means and viewpoints, including for sure a satirical perspective of the character and especially the times. And that's all. One-word appellations of the film, or even what Welles did on and about Heart ("his intent") simply do not stand. -The Gnome (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

If you are seriously suggesting that there are not a wide range of reliable sources which discuss the influence of the real-life Hearst on the character Kane, then your issue is rather wider than the one word we are debating. Take this article which states, "Although various sources were used as a model for Kane, William Randolph Hearst was the primary inspiration". Or this, Sources for Citizen Kane, which quotes Welles; "It's really a quite accurate picture of Hearst to that extent". Or the William Randolph Hearst article itself, which states, "His life story was the main inspiration for Charles Foster Kane". KJP1 (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Gnome, please be careful of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH yourself. It doesn't really matter how many quotes from Welles you can provide that you feel support your interpretation of the thematics of his work: if enough secondary WP:reliable sources described the film as a satire of Hearst, we would follow suit. Getting lost in the weeds of using Welles' own statements for support of this or that take on his intent is not productive under the analysis we utilize on Wikipedia. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

KJP1, personally I think all of those terms are probably more problematic from a WP:WEIGHT perspective than the original "satire". However, having looked at the language in the context of the Hearst Castle article, and having done some digging for more sources, I am not absolutely certain that "satirical" as it is used in that article is per se unacceptable. I do question whether it is WP:DUE enough for the lead of that article, but it is probably an ok way to discuss the ling between Hearst's manor and propensity for acquisition and their fictional parallels in the movie. I say "probably", because it is a nuanced issue that will need more exploration of sourcing to resolve. However, that is still absolutely and without question, a matter that has to be established by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the talk page of that article, where any proposed edits can be discussed in the context of the actual content proposed to be changed and preserved for the record on the correct talk page. It's not an issue of it "may" be discussed there, nor even that it "should" be. Under policy, longstanding best practice, and basic editorial common sense, it has to be discussed there. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input, Snow Rise.

I agree entirely with your take, which bears repeating here on account of its succinct and strong arguments:

"Context is king, but if I understand the language and location being debated here, it does not seem appropriate. Most but probably not all of the sources KJP1 references above qualify as WP:RS, but of those, only two (or arguably three) actually call the film a satire. The others use the word "satire" in syntactic and semantic forms which do not, in my opinion, directly support labeling the film as such in a fashion which does not require some degree of WP:Synthesis. However, even if all eight sources unambiguously called the film a satire, and all eight were to be regarded as high-quality RS, it would still be a questionable call to use that label, especially in an off-hand reference on an article only tangentially related to the subject, devoid of substantial discussion of the themes of the film. Ultimately this is a matter of WP:WEIGHT: Citizen Kane is one the most heavily discussed films in the history of critical review of the medium, and the vast, vast majority of coverage does not use this label to describe the subject in brief, as the suggested edit on Hearst Castle seems to propose to do."

Orson Welles himself, not to mention even some of his detractors, could not have put it better!

Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• P.S. I disagree with your take on this RfC being started here. The RfC simply happened to be triggered by a disagreement in another page. The RfC is about what kind of film is Kane, that is if the film can by summarized in one word, and has nothing to do with the Hearst Castle. In your words: "Placing that ["satire"] descriptor, unqualified, in the lead [of the Hearst Castle article], would probably not be appropriate. ... As such, using the label off-hand in a completely different article without that context is even more problematic." Exactly. We have a major issue on the appellation of Kane itself, an issue concerning the mother article on the film, so to speak, which affects and may affect other articles, in addition to Castle. So, the admonition you quoted ("Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article" e.g. Castle) is of course valid but the Castle article's content is, secondary at best, and used only as the trigger for a wider discussion concerning a different and more important issue. My "Background" introduction could have been omitted and nothing would have changed. In any case, I'll let the discussion proceed here, unless there are many significant arguments against its chosen venue. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, both policy and universal practice over the history of this project are crystal clear: we discuss specific proposed changes to the content of articles on the talk pages of those articles. This is WP:NOTAFORUM to discuss the facts relating to the subject in the abstract. We are only meant to be discussing specific issues relating to changes to the content of the articles, and those discussions are meant to take place on the talk pages connected with those edits, actual or proposed. There have been no edits to this article resulting from your difference of opinion with KJP1, and no future/speculative edits are proposed either, so there is no policy-consistent discussion to be had here. The only proposed changes are those you would like to see made at Hearst Castle, and in order to get that done, you must seek a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on the talk page of that article. No consensus reached here will be truly binding on that article, and having longwinded debates about what is right for this article when no changes to the status quo are being proposed is just creating walls of text here which serve no purpose, at best, and might even be perceived as WP:disruptive soapboxing. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 10:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Understood. I will therefore make no further comment here. Should User:The Gnome start a new/different RfC at Talk:Hearst Castle, we can discuss there. KJP1 (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Authorship

The biopic “Mank” shows Mankiewicz as the sole author of the script. This article suggests Wells was the principal author. Shouldn’t there be some discussion of this apparent conflict in this article? 98.183.25.236 (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

From Mank#Writing Many current academics and critics were sparked to action by Mank's many-times over debunked premise that the script was Mankiewicz's alone, including NY Times writer Ben Kenigsberg, and Jonathan Rosenbaum, editor of the Welles-Bogdanovich book This Is Orson Welles, who wrote "...Finchers Senior and Junior, willing and eager to accept and further spread Kael’s inaccurate assertion that Herman J. Mankiewicz was the only screenwriter on Citizen Kane, not bothering to research the matter." DonQuixote (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

And it’s worth noting that the question of authorship is already discussed in the Screenplay section, as well as in Screenplay for Citizen Kane. KJP1 (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)