In a world where money is often worshiped as the symbol emblematic of power, superiority and success, Orson Welles’s cinematic masterpiece Citizen Kane (1941), questions the validity of this common misconception, exposing the detrimental consequences that befalls those who seek power and wealth. Through Orson’s audacious and innovative filming techniques, Citizen Kane, in its non linear form, is enriched in moral substance reflective in the strong embodiment of protagonist, Charles Foster Kane. Complex, enigmatic and egotistical, Kane’s character is fostered by the traumatic abandonment of his mother as she acquires wealth. Undoubtedly the trauma endured by Kane’s detachment of his mother promotes his perverse and self destructive pursuit for love and wealth. Kane is depicted as man that has everything money can buy and despite this, his life remains meaningless and absent in the joys and pleasure of a fulfilling existence. His obsession with materialism masks his unhappiness as he shuns all those who love him, becoming insular from those he once cared about and descends into a tragic figure.
Good intro generally, apart from the minor things I've noted. Just remember to refer to your texts in present tense, not past.
Kane's life is motivated by his desire for both personal and public power. The feeling of abandonment, loss and exile experienced as a child cultivates Kane as a character that is egotistical, arrogant and domineering. Kane's life under the guidance of the cold and distant banker Thatcher was one of immense privilege and opportunity. This proved fruitless in providing a loving and nurturing childhood, as the older Kane reflects with resentment ‘I always gagged on that silver spoon’. It is clear that Kane does not fully value his affluence, as shown by his decadent attitudes in stating “I think it will be fun to run a newspaper’. Such statements illustrate Kane’s twisted view on the power of money, as he mistakes it to be a medium capable of enabling (poor vocab choice perhaps?) friendships, loyalties and acceptance. Kane proclaims “If I hadn’t been very rich I might have been a very great man” highlighting that the riches he possesses did not bring the stimulation and challenge of life, but rather hindered his ability to thrive to his full potential. Kane’s excessive prosperity shackles his ability to value both inanimate objects and the people that surround him. With the ‘worlds sixth largest private fortune” at his disposal Kane “always chose to buy things and never threw anything away” as a means to compensate the voids within his life. The fixation of materialistic wealth provided Kane with a vast collection of “things” but failed to attain the one thing he desired most, love. The humble idealistic beginnings of The Inquirer were representative of Kane’s success and defiance of Thatcher. The paper becomes his instrument to manipulate and “mould mass opinion” as Kane morphs and fractures the truth to dictate to readers what he perceives to popularise both himself and his paper. The inclusion of yellow journalism tarnishes Kane’s “Declaration of principles” as his once idealistic views of” truth” and disregard becoming the driving force eliminating friendships and the attainment of happiness.
Concerned only with his desire for power, Kane's egotism propels his self-satisfaction and obsession for success at any cost. Kane’s marriage with Emily was short as a result of his inability to empathise with anyone’s desire but his own, which is exemplified in the effective iconic montage scene ‘breakfast’ Was this scene actually called this in the storyboards or something? Or did you just make up that name? Might be better to just state "...in the iconic breakfast montage scene" otherwise. The scene charts the collapse of Kane and Emily’s relationship as time is encapsulated, allowing years to intertwine into a two minute montage sequence (a montage is the collection of those shots, and hence should be stated in the singular form)providing a visual narrative of the deterioration in their marriage. Initially, the couple are projected in a warm light reinforcing the flirtatious and intimate conversation as they complement and declare their love for one another, progression of the scene contrasts the beginning of their relationship as the ambiance becomes dark and the couple are seated at distance and begin to converse in a hostile manner leading Emily to exclaim “ Charlie what will people think” as Kane fiercely interjects “What I tell them to think” conveying the loss of the love the couple once shared This sentence is waaaaay too long. Perhaps split it off at 'progression of...'. It is Kane’s unremitting desire for public admiration that proves the ultimate downfall for their marriage as he becomes infatuated with campaigning in his political career leading to Emily’s disillusionment on their relationship and the man she married.
The subsequent failure of Kane’s political campaign marks Kane’s hell bent quest to dictate and mastermind the success of Susan Alexander's operatic career. The election loss proves a fatal trauma to Kane’s self constructed world as he questions his ability to control the outcomes in his life. Political defeat is technically portrayed by the extreme low angle shots in the news papers office and centres Kane amongst the ruins of campaign posters. The turning point occurs when Leland stumbles in drunkenly accusing Kane of not caring for anyone but himself. Leland is the metaphoric embodiment of Kane’s social conscience and the incorporation of extreme low angle shots aids to convey the moral chasm that now exists between Kane and Leland You've mentioned the low angle shot and that it shows defeat and a 'moral chasm', but how does it create this feeling? It's of particular concern here because low angle shots are typically used to show strength and power, and it's actually quite unique for Welles to successfully create such feelings with this very same shot.. Susan’s recollection of Kane is one of nostalgia and of tortured love. Upon their first encounter Susan is overwhelmed by Kane’s seemingly charismatic character and is willing to conform to his needs in the beginning, however it is once again Kane needs to resolute dominate and control that leads to the collapse of their marriage. Kane failed to empathise with how ‘Susan felt’ forcing her to pursue a opera career despite her lack of talent, and when she opposes he aggressively interjects “you will continue with your singing”. The adamant push for Susan’s career can be interpreted as Kane’s way of substituting the loss of his political career and can be inferred as he ‘next campaign’ arguably it can be stated as it is Kane true belief in Susan’s talent void of any underlying personal gain. Cool and immobile like statues Kane and Susan are separated by a void of emotional connection that is amplified by the actual physical distance at Xanadu. Susan is always viewed in an enclosed area suggesting she is trapped by Kane’s domineering presence. You've just inserted a piece of evidence at the very end (a nice one too I must say, but perhaps it's better to put this in perspective of Kane being in these areas to relate it to the topic), but you've cut yourself short and haven't expanded on it. Do it!
The tragedy of a lost childhood, tortures the enigmatic Kane fuelling his descent into tyrannical megalomania. Citizen Kane suggests that abundance of wealth does not necessarily correspond with fulfilment and happiness in life. Through life of Charles Foster Kane audiences are left to ponder whether is it Kane’s unwanted fate that leads to his tragedy or is it his individual unwavering belief that it is his inherent right to dictate and control the lives others that leads to his unhappiness. The misfortune lies not only in the character Kane himself but it is that only in death that he learns that money cannot console his desire for human warmth and compassion. Kane dying words ‘rose bud..’ indicates the tragedy as even though Kane had everything he materialistically desired in death the last thing he recalls is a the sleigh representing a time of innocence and childhood where he was poor but rich in happiness.NOOOO you left rosebud to the very end and didn't get to expand on it ]:
Overall, I came across quite a lot of expression errors, particularly in the use of commas and fullstops. You'd notice I corrected some of these just for examples sake, but there's many more littered around which I didn't bother fixing. Your sentences often went for too long, or didn't have commas where they were meant to be. Easiest solution is just to either read it out loud, or if you feel like a douche for doing so, at least read out every word in your head and listen to the rhythm your sentences make. These minor things can often add up to 1 or 2 marks and are easy to overcome, so just do it. The other thing to improve on is often your expansion of evidence. I've noted two particular cases above where I think you've got some great evidence, but you leave it until the end of the paragraph and just taper off with it. Chuck them in the middle of the paragraph and let them be a focus for your discussion - they'll do you well. The other thing that concerns me is your occasional steering off from the topic. It doesn't feel like you've actually proved he was in isolation and despair with much of your evidence, and you use it to explain other things such as Susan being controlled by Kane, reasons for the divorce with Emily etc. rather than using that evidence to stay on topic. However, on the positive side, generally well written in terms of vocab and such and general structure. If you happen to be short of evidence, just mention so and I can probably help you there since I studied this text last year.
Home
Help
Search
Login
