Compare Tarkovsky with Nolan is a crime. The first one loves cinema and the other one loves imax.

It's more than just the end of innocence. It is realizing that his mother did not love him unconditionally. This film is, by Orson Welles' own words, meant as a sociological statement about the modern "acquisitive" (Orson Welles own word) society and its destruction of the nuclear family and its sacred, spiritual bonds. Please read Robert Bly's take on this very subject in "Iron John". This is the most poignant condemnation of industrial, post-agragrian society in contemporary culture. It is the final twist of the "mother complex". Another film dealing with the same subject but set in pre-industrial Europe is Kubrick's masterpiece "Barry Lyndon". These two films are perhaps the finest films ever made, certainly the most acutely psychological and intelligent.

Great video, wonderful analysis. The meaning of "Rosebud" was haunting me. Now I appreciate the film even more. What a masterpiece!

Jesus, that's Endora (Agnes Moorehead) playing young Kane's mother.

These are two names that should never be put in the same sentence

Cause it's f..king disgrace!!...

You can't take Nolan seriously after watching Tarkovsky films. Nolan is a bad joke.

Nolan is a joke compared to Tarkovsky.

Kubrick = Mind Mallick = Heart

Imagine being cast out of your crib, into the reality of life? Nobody took my sled away, my parents or anything, I never had that. So I see him and Michael Jackson as very lucky, they have something to miss.

I wish more people would watch Tarkovsky

You did a fantastic job with this. I'd like to make some additional observations. 1. When Susan talks about singing she explains that her mother wanted her to sing "grand opera". Kane's interest in her voice is to give her what her mother wanted for her, even though her voice would have been more suited to singing in turn of the century Operetta and Vaudville productions. If Kane had simply backed her in that kind of career instead of massive French Grand Opera productions she may have been a success, and he would have taken the "qoutes" off the word "singer" that appeared in the rival newspapers. 2. Emily Monroe Norton Kane is a blue blooded snob, racist and cold fish. She is exactly the kind of woman that Kane's mother would have him marry. The depiction of their marriage does indeed show Emily's negative traits, especially when the subject of Mr Bernstein visiting Charles II in the nursery is discussed. Clearly Emily is not only offended by the gift Bernstein bought for her son, but is offended by Bernstein himself, who is depicted as the kindest, most upbeat character in the film. Charles is deeply offended when Emily tries to ban Bernstein from the nursery. Her only motivation to do so would be the above mentioned snobbery, racism and cold personality. Bernstein is obviously a Jewish person. Kane not only admires Bernstein but in his way wants justice and equality for all people of all faiths. This small section of the film is the exact point where Charles and Emily's marriage ends for all intents and purposes. By the time we have the exchange "People will think....what I TELL them to think" Charles despises Emily because of her racist and class oriented views. His whole reason for choosing a woman like Susan over Emily is due to Emily's character flaws. 3. Susan and Leland are painfully ungrateful people. Kane "punishes" Leland by allowing him to go to Chicago and continue his career as a theater critic. Leland therefore continues to enjoy a lavish lifestyle despite the fact that his friendship with Kane is over. We also know that Leland had his own designs on Emily, and most likely always resented the fact that Kane "stole" her from him with his money. He must have been very angry with Kane when he learned of his affair with Susan. Then when Susan has her premiere and Leland is too drunk to finish his bad review, Kane writes the review for him, then fires him while giving him a 25000 severance check. That sum would be worth $875,000 in today's money, clearly enough for Leland to buy a home, start a business, and in general have a successful life separate from Kane. He refuses the money because the insult is more important to him than accepting a very generous severance. Susan meanwhile is not at all grateful for the lavish lifestyle Kane gives her. She makes no attempt to find a type of performance that works for her voice. When the bombastic opera coach insults her Kane defends her, as any husband would, rich or poor. If Susan had just advised Kane that she should be singing Operetta and Vaudvlle roles, styles that would have accommodated her slender but pleasant voice very well, he would have still gotten what he wanted but she would have been far more successful. Later on she makes no attempt to take on her role as "Mrs Kane" and rule as a society hostess. She just wants to go back to New York and party on Kane's money. She isn't a bad person per se, but she makes no attempt to grow. In the end she loses her money because of the stock market crash and ends up a drunken bar room singer, still performing but in the lowest of all possible venues, as opposed to the many avenues that would have been available for her voice had she been more grateful. In general it's important to remember that all of the narrators in this story are flawed. Berstein loves Kane, so he tells the most upbeat story. Leland hates him so he tells the darkest story. Thatcher doesn't understand him so he tells an empty story from a financier's point of view. Susan is self centered, so she tells of hurting Kane by leaving him. The butler basically lies about events, so we can never really be sure if Kane even destroyed his bedroom, as monumental a scene as that is. It is a truly great story and a truly great film because all of these layers, and more, can be found with continued viewings. I still consider it the greatest film of all time due to its rich storyline, as well as the fantastic cinematic achievements.

It's really just about the loss of innocence. Every other detail is secondary to that and simply adds more detail. It was only when I had children that I realised how magical childhood really is.

Excellent review and analysis. It made me go back and re watch the movie. For future videos can you speak a little slower? Otherwise, your work on this is the best I’ve seen.

Excellent analysis, the film is full of symbolic images and movements I wasn't aware of until now that I've heard your explanations, Thank You !!!

You should see the movie RKO 281. It's about the making of Citizen Kane. It's free on KZbin and quite entertaining. The screenplay was written by Herman Mankiewicz, who was a close friend of Marian Davies, who was Hearst's long time mistress. You'll get a completely different explanation for Rosebud. What I don't understand about all the study of Citizen Kane by people is why they don't look at William Randolph Hearst's life. You have to understand Orson Welles hated Hearst. Rosebud is something he knew would make Hearst furious. Welles knew that when Hearst heard the word Rosebud being used in the movie that Welles was able to reach into the deepest most intimate details of his life. I think Hearst was stupid to make such a big deal out of it. His reaction to the movie is a worse condemnation of his character than anything in the movie. And Hearst was very public about it. Without the public attention Hearst brought to the movie people would have just said, what a weird movie about W. R. Hearst. But since everyone knew Hearst's emotional response to Citizen Kane people knew Welles really got to him. What's the deal? Hearst in his way to try to destroy the movie and Welles added fuel to the fire of the importance, and the lore of the movie. Whatever gravitas Citizen Kane has as a movie, it has so much more due to Hearst's behavior and personality. If you want to unlock the secrets of Citizen Kane just look into Hearst's reaction to it. RKO 281 gets into all that. Also check out the movie The Cat's Meow. If you watch RKO 281 they briefly talk about an incident that happened on board Hearst's yacht. That is the subject of The Cat's Meow. A Peter Bogdanovich movie.

You are Awesome!! Thanks for creating this Great Essay, my Brother. 🙏🏾 Blessings

Thank you 🖤📽️🚬

4:50 love this part. another amazing video, keep it up ♥️

Another great video essay from my favourite channel, did not dissapoint!

Just watched Citizen Kane for the first time and can’t stop learning more about it. Your video is one of the most informative, engaging and interesting pieces about the masterful film. It’s truly the Citizen Kane of Citizen Kane essays. Well done, sir!

Great analysis

I have no idea why you only have 00 subscribers bruh. That observation of authoritative figures on both sides, and him evolving into being the authority was genius.

Nice! Not many analyses for this movie on YT

Welles made this film in his 20's. Fucking incredible

You give an incredibly powerful insight to one of the greatest and possibly most complex movies ever made. I believe that in making the film Orson Wells gave a reflection of life within the story that he told. It is just the bones that is brilliantly made and told. You have added flesh giving a unique and very interesting interpretation of the way in which everyone got to where they were in the film. In many ways it is just a love story between Charlie Kane and his second wife Susan. Because of the early absence of his mother’s love, if that ever existed, he never learned to love a woman. Everything harks back to the final moment as a chid when with his sledge ‘Rosebud’, the chance for him to learn love from his mother was callously taken away. His father impotently stood by and watched being powerless to intervene. Almost as a ghost, his father’s impotency in him reoccurs at key turning points in his life. Brilliant film and very thoughtful review which adds real flesh to the bones.

I just didn't watch this essay, bcoz i haven't watched the film yet. Essay is really good i like you tried to explain this. A pretty good work 😊

Your essay are getting good as per time. Keep it up. I love your video essay.

Goddamn, this channel is seriously underrated. Well done man.

no,nolan is nowhere near tarkovsky even comparing them is a slap to tarkovsky's legacy.

The edit really makes the topic an interesting watch! great job.

Never occurred to me that Nolan and tarkovsky were playing on two ends of the same spectrum

Which do you prefer? Nolan's fighting with time? Or Tarkovsky's surrendering to it?

nice analysis, keep it up!

Amazing review, I suscribed

"It was his sled from when he was a kid, there I just saved you two long boobless hours!"

True romance’s dennis hopper is my favorite example of this

Great review

Very good.

Good but please don't crop the frame.

you are a genius man what did you study i want to be like you please tell me

OH! He said, "Rosebud!" I thought he said, "nosebleed."

Best explanation. I never observed those details while watching the movie until seeing this video. Hats off sir!

Nothing made him happier than his earlier life

Rosebud was his true friend true pleasure... Finally he realized that he should pass his time with his true friend true pleasure with innocence...

Good one!

Best.

its e fresh look on it but as anybody can learn to cook not everyone can cook like a chef that is still means that a chef can come from anywhere

I mean yeah this movie is about a talented rat cook who can't be a cook, a less talented cook who could be a professional cook, a frustrated talented professional cook with little chance to ever become a chef, a talented dead chef and a successful restaurant tester. It's less about cooking and more about careers, hard work and some social stuff.

You guessed my age bravo