Note: This is a paper that I wrote and presented at the EAPSU Shared Spaces Conference in April of 2017. I thought it would be appropriate for the site as it discusses Citizen Kane (thought to be one of greatest films ever made) in great detail. I would like to personally thank Dr. Christina Rieger for all of her support during the writing of this paper, as well as being a fantastic teacher.
Citizen Kane is the blueprint for power corruption narratives in film. Released in 1941, filmmaker Orson Welles graced the silver screen with his controversial epic detailing the rise and fall of newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane and the effects of his egocentric actions. Despite a mixed reception at release (most notably from real life newsman William Randolph Hearst, who claimed the film was a smearing campaign against him), Citizen Kane is now considered the greatest movie ever made in many critic’s circles. Welles introduced a plethora of filming techniques that are still used today, from fade-outs to montages and the now-popularized en medas res (starting the film in the middle of a story and retelling it via flashbacks). No one can deny the great leaps and bounds made by Welles’ film in terms of its scope and narrative structure, without which many of our modern classics might not exist.
It is surprising, then, that very little psychological analysis has been conducted upon the title character himself. While numerous books detail the making of the movie, the character has not been placed under the current psycho-analytic microscope. Charles Foster Kane has influenced a countless number of film and television characters since his inception, from J. Jonah Jameson in Spider-Man to Howard Beale in Network. Kane was the original mad newsman, so why has no one analyzed him? Through modern psychological analysis, Charles Foster Kane would likely be diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, brought on by early childhood trauma and an obsessive desire to leave his mark on the world, no matter what the cost.
Considered the father of psychology, Sigmund Freud would likely be fascinated by Charles Foster Kane. In his 1914 novel On Narcissism, Freud suggested that two types of narcissism exist: Primary and Secondary. On Primary Narcissism, Freud says, “a human being has originally two sexual objects-himself and the woman who nurses him-and in doing so we are postulating a primary narcissism in everyone, which may in some cases manifest itself in a dominating fashion in its object choice.” (Freud 88) Secondary Narcissism
“concerns the libidinal reinvestment of the self that results from withdrawal of certain amounts of libido from the object. This happens especially in cases of disappointment with the object or in mourning for a lost object; further, it occurs as a normal developmental process in secondary identification’ and where some of the libidinal investment of the admired or loved object is then transferred to the self as a consequence of this identification. Finally, it also happens when a person lives up to his ideals.” (79)
Kane often gains his energy and confidence via the obedience of others, and loses it when questioned. Nearly all of his actions fall in line with Freud’s definition of a secondary narcissist, eventually leading to his downfall. Kane’s pathway to destruction contains the losses of various libidinal objects, sadly all due to his narcissistic actions. As awful as these actions are, we cannot place all the blame on Kane. Psychologically speaking, the cause of his downfall begins with the loss of a very important libidinal object: his mother.
In An Introduction to Criticism: Literature/Film/Culture, author Michael Ryan says,
“Citizen Kane is almost a textbook representation of a broken mother-child bond. In the sequence in which Kane is sent away from home by his mother, all the images suggest coldness, distance, and alienation between mother and child. It is snowing, and the mother appears heartless. She is associated with law and the signing of contracts, all highly impersonal activities. There is no warm affection anywhere in the household, and Mr. Thatcher, the banker who has come to take Kane away and to be his guardian, is dressed in funeral black. In one image, the mother sits in the foreground, and Kane as a boy is in the distant background-literally out in the cold. The stage set is designed in such a way that Kane is separated visually from his mother by door and window frames that serve as metaphors for his actual relationship with her and for the impending abandonment of him by her.” (Ryan 57)
Mary wants her son to have the greatest opportunities possible, but he doesn’t understand that. Kane takes his mother’s action to mean that trusting people is a bad idea, that they will ultimately hurt him. Therefore, he will forever hold people at an arm’s length, never truly sure if he can trust them or not, and dropping them the second they present a problem.
We flash forward to see Kane as an idealistic young man eager to provide honest and unbiased news. He is youthful, ambitious, and naive to the realities of the world, but presses forward with his plans for the New York Daily Enquirer. He recognizes the power of the written word in delivering a message to the people and will use it to his greatest advantage, saying: “I’ve got to make the New York Inquirer as important to New York as the gas in {a} light.” (Welles) His closest friend is Leland (Joseph Cotton), who has promised to keep him on the right path. His trust in Leland comes from shared commonalities: they are men with a clear vision for the newspaper. He sees Leland as an ally who agrees with his ambitions and will follow him to the end. Kane unveils a “Declaration of Principles”, guidelines to ensure the paper will remain authentic when delivering the news to the city. However, they serve as a warning of his burgeoning narcissism, as a co-worker points out:
“I’ll provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly. I will also provide.. (A coworker interjects): That’s the second sentence you’ve started with ‘I’… (Kane continues): I will also provide them with a fighting and tireless champion of their rights as citizens and as human beings.” (Welles)
The co-worker’s joking about Kane’s use of the word ‘I’ is extremely important. Kane has written his principles with good intentions, but his word choice places more importance upon himself than the people of the city, thus feeding his narcissistic tendency. Were he not a narcissist, Kane likely would have used “this paper” or “This institution” in place of “I”, but he is, and there it stays. His thirst for power is only emerging here, but will grow over the course of his life to devastating effect.
Kane’s staff is made up of “the best men in the country”, good and honest men who will uphold his journalistic ideals. The office is male-dominated, with Kane being understood as the top dog. He relishes his position over others and flaunts it proudly. a textbook example of secondary narcissism: Kane is projecting his need for control on to the other men, and their following his orders only encourages it.
Kane soon feels his power has become great enough that he can get anything, and anyone, he desires, charming a woman named Emily (Ruth Warrick). She is initially enchanted by his egomania, but becomes gradually less so as he begins to take advantage of her affection. This is highlighted in a classic montage at the dinner table where the gap between the two grows larger and larger as the years go by, symbolized by them growing farther and farther apart at the table, separated by food, trinkets, and newspapers. Kane chose work over Emily, the former being the more important object choice, failing to realize the consequences of his actions both on him and those he cares about. Kane is again displaying intense secondary narcissism with Emily: he is withdrawing from her and becoming more focused on physical objects, searching for another woman to reciprocate his desires when she criticizes him. Emily was initially a pure object of affection because she went along with Kane’s exploits, but her questioning his rise to power causes great strife within their marriage:
Emily: “What do you do in the middle of the night?
Kane: My dear, your only correspondent is The Inquirer
Flash edit:
Emily: Sometimes I think I’d prefer a rival of flesh and blood
Kane: I don’t spend that much time on the newspaper
Emily: It isn’t just the time. It’s what you print, attacking the President.” (Welles)
Kane proceeds into a rant about the President, with the gap between the couple growing farther and farther until they are completely across the table from each other. Emily’s constant “attacking” of Kane’s actions transforms her into a barrier for him, violating the ego-induced “halo effect” he holds over her. Initially, Emily was “perfect” in Kane’s eyes because she supported his actions. However, her criticism is translated to Kane as antagonistic, causing whatever love he may have felt toward her to dwindle rapidly.
Eventually, the paper’s success is no longer enough to satisfy Kane. His thirst for control grows to the point that he begins a mayoral campaign. Like a true politician, Kane pledges change for all, and elimination of city corruption. In likely the film’s most famous shot, Kane stands upon a stage with a giant picture of his head behind him, a not-so-subtle example of his growing ego. The people cheering for Kane at the end of his speech provide him with the acceptance he has long-yearned for, though it is all too brief, as Emily’s continued criticisms lead to his seeking another object-choice to “replace” her.
Kane finds that “replacement” in Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore), a girl he picked up on the street. Like Emily, Susan is attracted to Kane’s power and status, perhaps even more so given her lower economic standing. This gives her even more reason to go along with Kane’s desires, temporarily satisfying his narcissism. Because of this, Kane barely reacts when Emily discovers his indiscretion. Possibly to show thankfulness, Kane later books Susan to star in an opera despite her complete lack of talent and interest in the activity. She tells him straight out that she doesn’t want any part of it, but he promises her worldwide fame, refusing to believe or even acknowledge her desires. He displays both Primary and Secondary Narcissism: Susan has become his object-choice, his obsessive muse, and he will do anything in the world to control her and have his actions supported. Kane likely cares for Susan somewhere deep down, but his NPD takes precedence, making him appear heartless and egomaniacal.
His reasoning behind forcing Susan to sing is debatable: he could be seeking further control over her, he truly believes he sees talent. Everything goes back to his mother’s abandonment in childhood. It has been proven that children need the support of their mothers to establish trust with others and develop positive social relationships with others. If that support is not given, the children will grow up believing the world to be an untrustworthy place where they will have to fight like the devil for everything they get and take examples of friendship as nothing other than manipulation. Any relationships these children establish will last only as long as the other person does not antagonize them in any way, even if the other person in question is completely in the right. Rather than confronting the problem, the individual will deem them “unworthy” and simply seek love and affection from another source, seeing the original friend as an opponent.
The volume of “Psychiatry” in the National Medical Series for Independent Study states, “Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have a grandiose sense of their own importance, but they are also extremely sensitive to criticism. They have little ability to empathize with others. They are more concerned about appearance than substance.” (Scully 266) Kane displays each of these tendencies throughout, both to positive and negative effect. He is unaware of the danger of these tendencies, going into rage when they backfire on him.
As Susan increasingly tells Kane of her displeasure with her singing career, he attempts to save the relationship and keep her love, at one point saying “Whatever I do, I do because I love you.” (Welles). Love is his ultimate rationalization: His mother didn’t love him, so he will attempt to “love” everyone he can. He tried to “love” both his wives by showering them with fame and physical gifts and “love” the city by trying to run an authentic newspaper. However, as Susan Alexander later states, “You never give me anything I really want.” (Welles) Freud states,
“A person may love:- (1) According to the narcissistic type: (a) what he himself is (i.e. himself). (6) what he himself was, (c) what he himself would like to be, (d) someone who was once part of himself.” (90)
Kane does not understand the concept of true love: He believes that Susan’s desires will mirror his own, never thinking to ask her what she wants out of their relationship. This question has never crossed his mind because he was never taught that side of relationships. Kane thinks he is providing Susan with the type of support she needs, unknowingly pushing her farther away.
Interestingly, Kane’s journalistic integrity remains intact at this point. He appears to have greater libidinal reinvestment in maintaining the honesty of the newspaper than for Susan, displayed when he finishes a bad review of her performance for Leland, with whom he hasn’t spoken in many years. We see Leland sleeping at his desk with an unfinished wine bottle on one side. After reading what Leland has of the article, Kane laughs in agreement and decides to finish it, a reminder of the commonalities they once shared. The shot cuts to Leland waking from his desk and seeing the article gone. He goes to a co-worker who says, “Mr. Kane’s just finishing your review just the way you started it. He’s writing a bad notice like you wanted it to be. I guess that’ll show you.” (Welles)
Leland then enters the room to speak with Kane, who promptly fires him. Kane’s expression is one of pain; he does not want to fire his comrade, but does in order to avoid inner conflict between his two loves. The next scene sees an older Leland offering the explanation for his firing to an interviewer: “He {Kane} thought that by finishing that notice he’d show me he was an honest man. He was always trying to prove something.” (Welles) Kane wanted to prove to Leland, and possibly himself, that his journalistic integrity still existed, not considering Susan’s reaction. He even sends Leland a $25,000 check, as he too was an object-choice for Kane (to a lesser extent) and he legitimately cares for him.
Unfortunately, Susan’s reaction only increases Kane’s inner conflict. She is angered by her husband’s paper giving a negative review of her singing (which she has no interest in), and the check. He is now doubly tormented: he fired Leland to avoid personal conflict, despite maintaining journalistic integrity, but has angered his object-choice Susan. He decides to put all his energy into her and leave his journalistic principles behind, personified when he destroys said principles and responds to Susan’s begging him to leave her alone by saying,
“My reasons satisfy me, Susan. You seem unable to understand them. I will not tell them to you again. You will continue with your singing.” (Welles)
Kane is reacting defensively: Susan’s lashing out is seen as an attack on his journalistic instincts, despite her being unaware he wrote the article. He destroys his declaration of principles because they lead to his conflict with Susan, whom he now fears losing. He verbally dominates her to maintain control, forcing her to continue her singing. Unfortunately, Susan attempts suicide to escape from Kane’s thumb, saying,
“I couldn’t make you see how I felt, Charlie. But I couldn’t go through with the singing again. You don’t know what it means to know that people, that the whole audience just doesn’t want you.” (Welles)
Kane finally realizes Susan’s hatred of singing, allowing her to stop so he can maintain her affection. He fears an audience not wanting him more than anything in the world, especially Susan. Unfortunately, his libidinal reinvestment goes into overdrive, filling the house with exotic items and unintentionally forcing Susan into a reclusive lifestyle. He feels that building a literal palace around Susan and showering her with gifts will satisfy her, but to no avail. His fails to understand her true desires leads to yet another argument, with Kane’s desperation for control now overshadowing his love for her. He next sees her packing to leave him, and, in a final attempt to maintain her affection, says, “From now on, everything will be exactly the way you want it to be. Not the way I think you want it, but, your way.” This is the first time Kane has ever offered control to someone else seemingly realizing his wrongdoings, and believes that offering Susan the reigns on their relationship will save it. She considers it momentarily, but he continues with “You can’t do this to me,” showing us that all of his libidinal investment is now in her.
She promptly leaves him, and Kane goes into a rampage, yanking the bedspread, breaking glass, flipping over tables, and destroying anything not bolted down. The outburst is due to a sudden loss of control as well as, in his mind, female abandonment. His mother left him, Emily left him, and now Susan has left him. He pauses to pick up a snow-globe, containing a tiny sled, saying “Rosebud” before walking through the doors blankly to a large crowd of people in his living room. Their adoration means nothing to him; he truly loved Susan, and her loss proves to be the final nail in his narcissistic coffin. He has lost both object-choices in his life, and now has lost the will to locate another. He has all the power in the world, but it means nothing.
“Rosebud” was the word written on a sled he possessed during childhood. The sled is seen at the beginning, but never again. The greatest argument for its inclusion is that Kane, right before death, recognizes the wrongs he’s committed in his life and yearns for his childhood innocence. His only positive childhood memory was playing with that sled, therefore his remembrance of the phrase makes complete sense; he is finally aware that he drove everyone away, and only desires to be at peace, to receive another chance at life. A chance he would never get.
Citizen Kane is a landmark in cinema history. Orson Welles utilized numerous film techniques and storytelling styles that are used and modified to this day. However, while the film’s technical advances should not be brushed over, the psychological complexity of its title character is nothing short of fascinating. Orson Welles created a tragic madman, an individual driven by grand ambition, but consistently thwarted by his own demons. Charles Foster Kane is the original self-absorbed industrialist whose psyche should be studied just as intently as the film around him. Kane embodies narcissism, displaying every symptom provided by modern psychologists as well as Freud’s original definition. In the end, we should admire the technology of Citizen Kane, but be mesmerized by the psychology of the man himself.
Works Cited Page
Citizen Kane Ultimate Collectors Edition. RKO Pictures. 2011. DVD
Ryan, Michael. An Introduction to Criticism: Literature Film Culture. Chichester, West Sussex. Wiley-Blackwell, 2012. Print.
Sandler, Joseph, Ethel Person, and Peter Fonagy. Freud’s ‘On Narcissism : An Introduction’. London: Karnac Books, 2012. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 28 Nov. 2016.
Scully, James H. “Chapter 11 4B Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” Psychiatry. 3rd Ed. Vol. 1. Richmond, TX: Williams and Wilkins, 2000. 266. Print. National Medical Ser. For Independent Study. 26 November 2016.