Citizen Kane's Vulnerability

Citizen Kane is a valued text because it explores the challenging ideas of power and vulnerability.

Texts are valued beyond the constraints of time when universal ideas are explored. Orson Welles’ psychodrama film Citizen Kane (1941) examines the omnipresent idea of the corruptive and impactful nature of abuse of power as paralleled with human vulnerability. Through the enigma of Kane and his relationship with society and Susan Alexander, we observe her profound influence that leads to the exposure of Kane’s vulnerability. Welles positions audiences of all contexts to question the way our actions may incite negative responses from others, whilst isolating us in vulnerability. This investigation of universal human behaviour resonates with the

World War II context of the 1940s and the egotistical environment of the 21st century.

Welles establishes Kane’s power in society through his status as a media mogul, greedy for political control. The News on the March newsreel illustrates Kane’s power in society, as a media magnate who encourages a multiplicity of responses through the visual montage and diegetic dialogue that labels Kane as he is recalled by Thatcher in a medium shot at a press conference as “Nothing less than a communist”, in a low-angle shot at a political rally “what he always has been and always will be: a fascist” and the text of Kane’s opinion that “I am, have been, and will be only one thing: an American”. This emphasises the power of Kane, but also his inaccessibility. The binary opposites in his representation ensure that Kane ignites strong emotions and opinions in society. He is reduced to simplistic statements that ironically mimic the headlines in his newspapers, mirroring the yellow journalism of William Randolph Hearst. This promotes the curiosity invoked by the power of Kane that ignites the everlasting search for the motivation behind his behaviour, which transcends context and resonates with 21st century responders, adding value to the text. Welles conveys the manifestation of greed from this established power in the newspaper party scene through the foregrounding of the ‘K’ ice statue and Kane questioning Bernstein that, “You don’t expect me to keep any of those promises, do you?” The rhetorical question connotes uncertainty and disloyalty, highlighting Kane’s changing attitude, as his previous desire for power to improve New York City has transformed to greed for control to feed his growing ego with personal satisfaction and excess wealth. This resonates with the corruption of the American Dream as “Kane values power above all else… he exploits, browbeats and controls.” (Simmons). As ego consumes moral values, power is corrupted. Welles conveys this in the campaign speech scene through the visual hyperbole of the monumental poster symbolising the dramatic expansion/inflation of Kane’s ego, while the extreme high-angle shot from Kane’s political rival, Getty’s perspective, highlights Kane’s impending vulnerability and positions the responder to question him through a superior lens. Welles hence exposes that power in the media and support from society fuel Kane’s ego that must inevitably burn.

The catalyst for the emergence of Kane’s vulnerability is his imbalanced relationship with Susan, which he initially dominates. Welles displays Kane’s control of Susan as his possession, resonating with the contextual patriarchal values, as she is objectified with synecdoche of her personal traits expressed through Kane’s obsession with her diegetic singing voice in the singing lesson scene. The triangular composition of the mise-en-scène, with Kane backgrounded at the peak illustrating his looming subtle power, while Susan is slumped and foregrounded to the side expressing her insecurity and vulnerability, with her hunched body language representing her inferior experience of oppression in the relationship with Kane. His power negatively impacts Susan, as reinforced in the suicide attempt scene with a high-angle shot of Susan’s sweaty face in chiaroscuro. The connotations of death imply the mortality of power and Welles positions responders to observe the detrimental effects of Kane’s abuse of power, which results in permanent impacts even in the absence of Kane as demonstrated in the scene, ‘She Won’t Talk’. Her harsh voice as she cries, “Get out!” contrasts with the revelation of her character through the intrusive camera from the crane to high-angle shot through the window and into the room, emphasising that despite having courage to defy Kane, she has lost her power and is vulnerable. The sense of curiosity invoked by the invasive crane shot reinforces the commodification of Susan as a decorative object to be examined, emphasising her vulnerability in isolation in the aftermath of Kane’s oppressive power. Welles therefore positions the responder to observe the challenging idea of the immutability of our actions on others through the fractured, polar relationship between Kane and Susan. However, it is not only Susan influenced by Kane’s abuse of power, but Kane himself.

The corruption of power leads to an imbalanced relationship and as a result the individual becomes vulnerable while the partner gains power.

Kane’s vulnerability is first exposed in the Boarding House scene where Welles positions us to question its reliability as it is presented through Thatcher’s perspective. Through a psychoanalytical understanding, we view this scene as the internal world of Kane’s snow globe, which represents the crystallisation of childhood innocence in an inaccessible glass box while he is still in control of his power. As Kane is bribed to become the “richest man in America” with the superlative reinforcing the valuing of wealth, the camera pans from the mother to Kane with a power undershot displaying the significance of the moment and its consequences to Kane’s psyche, emphasising the corruption of innocence by wealth, which steals his childhood vulnerability. However, this vulnerability re-emerges as Kane loses control of his power in the scene as Susan walks out as he is portrayed with a low-angle shot but is fragmented by the open suitcase. The visual synecdoche conveys a powerful man’s downfall as his excess power spirals out of his control. Susan looks up at him and she is illuminated and he is in shadow. Although Kane physically dominates her, Susan is now independent, and she can see clearly and be responsible for her own actions now, expressing the reversal of the possession of power. The return of his vulnerability is emphasised in the scene as he destroys Susan’s room with the panning movement of the camera tracking his movement creating a sense of unsteadiness, with his restricted movement in the cluttered room and symbolism of pushing objects off tables demonstrating that he is weighed down by his power and now devalues the commodification of products and women that catalysed his rise and fall of control of power. Power acts as a cover for the vulnerability experienced in childhood, which re-emerges as a result of an overdose

of control. Kane’s vulnerability is a challenging idea as it portrays that the everyman is consequence to it in a time of fear of vulnerability in the World War II context.

Power imbalance in societal and personal relationships transcends contextual values and is epitomised through Welles’ presentation of the dynamic between Kane, American society, and Susan, augmenting textual integrity. Welles constantly positions the responder to question the ideal of power. Beyond Welles’ exploration of power and vulnerability, we must reveal that the core of Citizen Kane and the reason for its textual integrity is his universal message of the mortality of power.