Talk:Citizen Kane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Library of Congress (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Onel5969, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on April 15, 2014. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Critism may not be the right word.[edit]

It is commonly forgot that the term "criticism," actually refers to either positive critism or negative criticism (don't believe me look it up). Perhaps it would be smarter to put a section that says positive criticism and negative critism. I don't know it's just an idea. I think it would make this page look much more professional although technically the way your doing it isn't wrong just not proper. -James Pandora Adams

Per the MOS it would seem most appropriate to move this into a Critical Response section under Reception. Doniago (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but what I mean is why don't you put under criticism "Negative criticism," or just have both positive and negative reviews of the movie under criticism. I don't know that would seem like the smarter thing to do. -Again James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC) If it okay with you guy I'm going to go ahead and do it it's only one word. -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Citizen Kane (score)[edit]

I've been sitting on a nice wikitable of the entire Herrmann score that I was intending to fork into another article. Currently I don't have the time. So I'd be willing to let someone else set up a separate article on the music for this film. -- kosboot (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

'See also: Twist ending'[edit]

This article currently contains a 'See also' link to Twist ending. Do other editors think that belongs here? That article defines its subject as 'A twist ending is a plot twist occurring near or at the conclusion of a story, an unexpected conclusion to a work of fiction that causes the audience to reevaluate the narrative or characters.' You can argue over how much this applies to Citizen Kane, but personally, I don't think it really qualifies. The identity of 'Rosebud' is the central mystery of the film, so it's not exactly unexpected that the film ends by revealing it; and it's not the kind of shocking, out-of-nowhere reveal that causes the viewer to reexamine everything they've seen so far, which is more what I think of by the term 'twist ending'. (For example, the endings of The Usual Suspects, The Sixth Sense and Fight Club.) What do others think?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robofish (talkcontribs) 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not really important what rosebud is, as Jerry Thomas concludes "I guess Rosebud is just a piece in a puzzle...the missing peice." (this is how I remember the quote to be) Rosebud is a mystery throughout the movie but really its not really important that rosebud is the sled. The really story is not about Thomas but about Kane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


  1. 6 Filmmaking innovations
* 6.1 Cinematography
* 6.2 Storytelling techniques
o 6.2.1 Special effects
o 6.2.2 Makeup
o 6.2.3 Soundtrack
* 6.3 Music

-- (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

rosebud in moby dick[edit]

Rosebud was the name of a wooden french ship in chapter 91 of moby dick that had 2 long-dead whales strapped to the sides. The pequod crew made fun of the french for being stupid whalers and remarked on the irony and humor of the ship's name, since they could smell it even before they saw it. "A wooden rose-bud, eh?" he cried with his hand to his nose, "that will do very well; but how like all creation it smells!" Orson did a stage production of mody dick in the 1950's. it would be interesting to see his treatment of that passage.Ywaz (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that discuss this? Doniago (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


It's been a few months since I edited the plot. I continue to argue that the real framing device of the film is not just Rosebud, but the sign that says "No Trespassing." You can see from earlier versions of the script, before Rosebud was conceived, that this would be the device - and it's still in the film, particularly the final shot (which is not the sled, but that "No Trespassing" sign. So I ask you all to consider this addition to the plot. -- kosboot (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that discuss this? Doniago (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't have it in front of me, but I believe the Kael book makes an issue of it. -- kosboot (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To-do for GAN[edit]

What needs to be done to this article to prepare it for WP:GAN? It looks fairly stable, citations are abundant, but could be cleaned up a bit. Maybe a copyedit scrubdown. Any other major issues? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hearst Castle showing[edit],0,746138.story

Might be appropriate to mention after it happens. (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Consistent possessive: Welles's[edit]

As a resource and reference, this is a link to the discussion about the need for a consistent possessive on the talk page of the article on Orson Welles. This article, and many others, uses the possessive "Welles's" consistently. If consensus changes on that there will be a good deal of editing ahead; for now, I'm reverting a good-faith edit to the lede of this article made today.—WFinch (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Overly detailed" section on distribution rights[edit]

In March, the Distribution rights section of this article was tagged as being "overly detailed" and having interest to only a select audience. I'd like to disagree, since the information is succinct and well sourced, and most particularly because the distribution of Citizen Kane long after its initial theatrical release brought about its rediscovery and resurgence. Unless someone takes issue with that, I'd like to remove that tag.—WFinch (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Trivialist added it, but I do not think that the section is long at all. I'm fine with removing the tag. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've taken it off; I guess it's not crazy detailed. Trivialist (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Continued top-film recognition[edit]

Noted as "Greatest Film Ever" in ... "1 Citizen Kane". Entertainment Weekly. July 5/12 2013. p. 30. 

Peer Review[edit]

Citizen Kane[edit]

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)

Factual inconsistencies[edit]

Comparing the Italian and English page on Citizen Kane, one contradicts the other:

- the Italian page states that the film was actually profitable (using data from various sources: and, while the English page states that "Citizen Kane failed to recoup its costs at the box office". It may be that some of the data used to support the statement is actually inflation-adjusted (and the other data isn't), but that seems unlikely, because if that were the case, not only the sales failed to cover the production costs, but it would have actually been a tremendous disaster.

- the Italian page states that Sartre actually held the film in disdain, calling it "baroque and excessive" (citing a text by Merenghetti, which is unavailable online), while the English page states that Sartre, among others, helped restore the film's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Errors in the music section[edit]

The music section of this article is incorrect in identifying the song that takes place during "the fight between Susan and Kane in the picnic tent" as "It Can't Be Love." The name of the song is "In a Mizz." It was composed by Haven Johnson and Charlie Barnet. The lyrics (and not the opening lyrics) include the phrase "It can't be love," but that is not the title of the song. Unfortunately the David Meeker article cited as secondary source for this also gets it wrong. Would anyone like to correct it? You can listen to the 1939 recording of "In a Mizz" by Charlie Barnet here on YouTube: Bobdeckerbob (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to light. I've corrected that information. — WFinch (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Citizen Kane" ripped off from "Imperial Hearst"?[edit]

I was just reading "The New Yorker" magazine (Jan. 20, 2014, pg. 74) in which it is reported that Ferdinand Lundberg sued over "Citizen Kane" bearing resemblance to his book "Imperial Hearst". The trial ended in a hung jury and the case was settled out of court. Hollywood is notorious for script theft--does anyone have further information on this particular copyright infringement case? Was "Citizen Kane" derived from "Imperial Hearst"? If it was, then Ferdinand Lundberg is owed an Oscar. (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right about my reversion.  I acted or reacted too quickly.  Mi scusi.  Thanks for the correction.
Doc – DocRushing (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC).
All part of the service! :) DonIago (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)