Talk:Citizen Kane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

Contents 1 Technical mistakes 2 Event 3 Citizen Kane preceeded method acting? 4 Quoting style 5 Turner's Comments About Colorizing The Film 6 Awards 7 Well's accident. 8 Plot 9 Actor Buddy Swan 10 Image 11 List of references in other work 12 possible vanddalism from school ip 13 "this innovative masterpiece is perhaps the most influential in the history of film" 14 Criticism 15 Anti-Welles Inaccuracies 16 The Sims 17 Spoiler Tags 18 Clumsy sentence 19 The real ghost busters 20 Really trivial "trivia" 21 Kael link 22 Academy Award

[edit] Technical mistakes

I've removed the following paragraph from "Technical mistakes". The butler clearly states during the film that he was present to hear Kane's last words.

"When Kane utters the word "rosebud" before he dies, surprisingly, no one seems to be around. He seems to be alone in a room and he does not say it out loud, just whispers. Then, one wonders how the world comes to know about it." Apathetic 22:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[Text moved here from main article] (Citation Needed) - Are these mistakes or innovations? [posted by Wilhelmurg on 26 August 2006] --Miss Dark 01:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Event

An event in this article is a May 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment)

---

[edit] Citizen Kane preceeded method acting?

How can Citizen Kane be considered a "predecessor of method acting" when Stanislavski, (as in "Stanislavski method"), was dead for years before Citizen Kane was made??? --- Someone else 00:42 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

Not being familiar with the subject, my first question is whether the Stanislavski Method was widely popular at the time, and whether Welles was aware of it. If not, Wells could not really be considered an adherant to Stanislavski's philosophy. Personally, when I hear the term "method acting" I think of the cinema of the 1970s and actors such as Brando and DiNiro. Did the rediscovery of CK in the 1960s influence their belief that the Stanislavski Method could be effective? We need someone better versed in Hollywood history to answer that one.Ionesco 19:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I know a bit about this. I'm absolutely sure that Orson Welles would have known of Stanislavsky. Welles was a theatre actor before he went into film, and Stanislavsky's ideas were a major shaping force on modern dramatists such as Chekhov and Ibsen. Stanislavskian acting is often blurred with 'Method Acting' as if they're the same thing, but in fact Method Acting is a particular branch of Stanislavskian theory that developed in America in the 30s and 40s (becoming famous in the 50s with Marlon Brando and James Dean; Al Pacino and Robert De Niro represent a later period of an already existing school). The differences between Stanlislavsky and Method Acting are extremely vague and indefinable (try reading the current Wikipedia articles and see if you can understand a word of them). But the basic point is that it's probably better to call Welles's style an early form of method acting, rather than a precursor (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone). The Singing Badger 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Peter Brogdanovich on the US DVD commentary, not only was Welles familiar with it, he in fact detested it, on the grounds that as a director he wanted an actor 'to be able to change his delivery at the drop of a hat without worrying too much about his motivation', as he apparently liked to experiment with such things. JDS2005 06:59, 8 January, 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] Quoting style

Wereon made some changes marked as "quoting sytle." They moved all the quotes after periods in sentences to before the periods. Though commmon today, it is technically incorrect. When a quote ends a sentence, the quote marks should come after the ending mark, not before. If there is a Wikipedia Style Guide page that refutes this, I'd be happy to see it. Otherwise, we should keep the quote marks outside ending sentence marks except in special circumstances. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:21, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

See the Jargon File's take on it. Personally, I've been doing it this way (periods outside) for as long as I can remember. Not recommending one way or another, just throwing in my two cents. --Cuervo 05:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Predominantly American convention results in things like "this." Predominantly British convention results in things like "this". (In fact more often things like 'this'.) Oh, and my apologies to Canadians, Australians, etc etc etc for not mentioning them: I'm just trying to simplify. Arguably, they're merely two (or three) different conventions. But Britishness/Americanness aside, the predominantly British one is superior: see "Punctuation and Human Freedom", an essay by Geoffrey Pullum in The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax. To quote Pullum (very precisely) when discussing the dilemmas of the author of a manuscript for publication by a conventional US publisher:

. . . But now suppose that you want to say this:

(2) Pullum notes that it takes ten keystrokes to type the string ‘the string’.

You won't be able to publish it. . . .

That's from p. 69. Get hold of the essay; you'll enjoy it. -- Hoary 04:46, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I think, if you'll check a general English style manual (as opposed to the style manual of a particular press organization), the correct form is that single words, incomplete thoughts (ones that wouldn't end with their own punctuation), and quotes used for emphasis end inside the punctuation set of the parent sentence (or "before the ending mark"). Complete thoughts (such as citations in complete sentences) and full quotations (those that end with their own punctuation) end outside the punctuation set of the parent (or "after the ending mark"). In the case where the second type of quote has different punctuation from the parent sentence, the punctuation from the quote ends the sentence. Bob said would be a statement ending with a period, but if you include what Bob said, Bob said, "How dare you kick my dog?," the interrogative mark becomes the final punctuation of the sentence, inside the quotes. Note from my example that the comma following the question mark is inside the quotes because the example is a complete sentence. If I refered to the sentence later as an object or a title, like "Bob said...", instead of using the complete sentence over and over, the quotes indicate a single object but the contents are no longer a complete thought so the comma goes outside the quotes. The idea that Americans "always" do it one way and that Brits "always" do it another is apocryphal; neither method is correct, although I don't doubt that many people believe that it is. Wikipedia may have its own style conventions that contradict this, and each press style manual may have a slightly different take on this (the newspaper I work for insists that the quotes always go inside, while the research organization I worked for prior maintained that they always go outside; neither convention agrees with the way I was taught in school and University). For more, I recommend Strunk & White and Eats, Shoots and Leaves. Canonblack 14:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turner's Comments About Colorizing The Film

I corrected innacuracies regarding Turner's comments about colorizing Kane. The previous writer stated that Turner Entertainment had announced plans to colorize 'Citizen Kane' and had to abandon these plans due to public outcry. This is simply not true. Turner did make a comment about colorizing the film to reporters, and that comment did create a swift backlash from colorization opponents. However, Turner Entertainment, as a corporate entity never announced a colorized Kane as an upcoming project. That being the case, they certainly would not have ever been able to "cancel" a project that they did not have in any stage of production, or pre-production to begin with.

I also deleted the coment that Welles "reportedly" made comparing colorization to Crayolas. That comment is a rumor as far as anyone can tell, and there does not seem to be any verifiable source for that comment cited.

[edit] Awards

Halló! See awards at [1]. Regards Gangleri 05:10, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Okay, so ?...Dowew 01:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well's accident.

". (Welles actually tripped and broke his ankle during the filming of that scene, but the scene continued and made it into the final print of the film.)"

I believe that's combining two separate incidents. There is a scene where Wells has to run down stairs, and he hurt himself, but that take did not make it into the final print. The scene where Wells goes on a rampage in his second wife's room and smashes the furniture is the one where an injury is left in the final cut. Wells cut his hand, but didn't want to stop filming, and he made sure you couldn't see his hand in that scene. My source is Ebert's commentary for the movie.--Havermayer 2 July 2005 22:19 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Please give more details on the plot. There's a lot of information on its impact but little on its plot. Redwolf24 7 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Agreed, the plot summary is horrendous. There is a much better summary in the Charles Kane article. 66.75.247.206

[edit] Actor Buddy Swan

This article states: "The only remaining living cast members are Buddy Swan and Sonny Bupp, who played Kane at age 8 and Kane's young son, respectively." However, the article for Buddy Swan indicates he has been dead for over a decade. Anyone in the know should correct. (July 19, 2005)

[edit] Image

I originally downloaded this for the Triumph of the Will page, but since I haven't been able to cite Orson Welles actually being inspired by the film, I'm taking it off. The image remains though. Enjoy. Palm_Dogg 18:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of references in other work

I removed the list of refences because they aren't a part of the film. They are an interesting legacy to the movie and perhaps something of the effect can be mentioned, but each individual reference does not belong here. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 07:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] possible vanddalism from school ip

this is a school ip--68.125.168.193 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "this innovative masterpiece is perhaps the most influential in the history of film"

Endlessly discussed and dissected by critics and viewers alike, this innovative masterpiece is perhaps the most influential in the history of film - Where's the source for this comment? - G3, 18:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree that it's endlessly discussed and dissected by both critics (or anyway scholars) and, well, those (rare) viewers who are inclined to discuss and dissect. But I don't think it was innovative; rather it was a good mixture of ingredients that were newish but not new. As for its influence, there may well have been some, but the article doesn't seem to show it. I'd expect that any assertion in the introduction such as this would be supported by additional material lower down. And this is why I'm reverting some IP's unexplained removal of the FACT tag. -- Hoary 00:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

is it just me or does the riticism section need more than one guys opinion?

I've added a bit about Pauline Kael's infamous attack on the authorship of the movie. Count Ringworm 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Welles Inaccuracies

At present this is full of inaccurate, POV nonsense (eg. the claim that Welles' life resembled that of Kane more than it did Hearst's: Welles died in a relatively small house a few hours after having dinner with a few close friends. He was in a loving relationship...and had no manservants). Change it, please, somebody.

The quote you refer to is by Robert Wise. Was Robert Wise 'anti-Welles'? I don't know, but the opinion of someone who worked on the film is inherently interesting even if you disagree with it. The Singing Badger 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sims

You guys forgot to mention that EA Games's The Sims uses the cheatcode "rosebud" as a money code. Clearly, a reference to Citizen Kane. RocketMaster 21:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler Tags

Perhaps this page should be cleaned up a bit to indicate spoilers; some readers obviously have not seen the film, and learning within a few sentences of the article the meaning of "rosebud" can ruin a large part of the movie experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.19.19.189 (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Clumsy sentence

In the trivia section: "Orson Welles attended and graduated from the Todd School in Woodstock, Illinois, and thus would have been influenced by and knowledge of the other major living characters of this particular era (in addition to William Randolph Hearst) that inspired the Kane character in the movie. These were the Chicago Utilities Magnate Samuel Insull (1859-1938) and Chicago Tribune Publisher Robert McCormick (1880-1955)."

Should read "... have been influenced by and have had knowledge of the...".

[edit] The real ghost busters

Theres an episode in the cartoon real ghost busters where they go try to take a gost out of a mansion, and all he sais is rosebud or rosebum, I dont remember, and in the end of the episode the ghost leaves the mansion in a sled. Why isnt this in the page??????????? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.128.86.85 (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Guess: Because most people who happen to know of this factoid realize that even if the word is "Rosebud" the factoid says nothing of interest or significance about the movie itself. If it's significant to "the cartoon real ghost busters" (whatever that might be), then, after checking its veracity, stick it in the relevant article. -- Hoary 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But isnt it like reference to the movie?????????

Yes, it's a reference to the movie. So? -- Hoary 14:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Really trivial "trivia"

Here's a pile of what I thought was mere blather telling us nothing about the movie:

I wiped it out. Let's take the bit about the White Stripes' song "The Union Forever", as an example. I can understand how this might be of interest to people interested in that song or the CD or the band; if it's of interest and significance, stick it there. I find it hard to believe that it's of interest or significance to anyone who's not interested in the song, the CD or the band. I'd dispute any claim that the sheer amount of "references in popular culture" is somehow significant, but if it were significant, then that's what the "What links here" link is for. -- Hoary 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kael link

I've just removed

* [http://www.paulrossen.com/paulinekael/raisingkane.html Pauline Kael's "Raising Kane", a long essay questioning the authorship of ''Citizen Kane'']

I have no reason to think that Kael's work is not conventionally copyright (and I don't mean copyleft). There is no explanation of its copyright status on this site. I've reason to think that it's a copyright infringement, and an obvious one. Perhaps I'm wrong, or again perhaps I'm right but WP articles should link to obvious copyright infringements. Comments? -- Hoary 14:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Academy Award

Since the film only one a single Academy Award (WRITING (Original Screenplay)) and not for best picture, it doesn't seem right to emphasize that in the intro. In fact, Citizen Kane is a rather famous example of a film that the Academy mostly snubbed. --Jeremy Butler 11:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)