Compare Tarkovsky with Nolan is a crime. The first one loves cinema and the other one loves imax.
@bodhisoha3 ай бұрын
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.
@antakalipa4 ай бұрын
Great video, wonderful analysis. The meaning of "Rosebud" was haunting me. Now I appreciate the film even more. What a masterpiece!
@user-pz2lt7ox1r5 ай бұрын
Jesus, that's Endora (Agnes Moorehead) playing young Kane's mother.
@marcogianesello60836 ай бұрын
These are two names that should never be put in the same sentence
@Priya_kulkarni6 ай бұрын
Cause it's f..king disgrace!!...
@algarridm7 ай бұрын
You can't take Nolan seriously after watching Tarkovsky films. Nolan is a bad joke.
@algarridm7 ай бұрын
Nolan is a joke compared to Tarkovsky.
@Juan-wo7zu3 ай бұрын
Yeah.
@aditi12847 ай бұрын
Kubrick = Mind Mallick = Heart
@uhadme8 ай бұрын
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.
@jacobsouls9 ай бұрын
I wish more people would watch Tarkovsky
@canalesworks124710 ай бұрын
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.
@CinemaAbsurdist10 ай бұрын
Excellent points, and very well made! I hadn't considered the flawed narrators, thank you : ) It truly is a film that keeps on giving
@canalesworks124710 ай бұрын
@@CinemaAbsurdist You are most welcome. Your original video is brilliant, one of the best film analyses I have seen on KZbin.
@daveparsons563010 ай бұрын
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.
@Doctormubefund10 ай бұрын
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.
@CinemaAbsurdist10 ай бұрын
Thank you so much! Will keep in mind to speak slower, I think I've been watching too much CJ The X which has rubbed off on me xD
@luishumbertovega3900 Жыл бұрын
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 !!!
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much :)
@nellgwenn Жыл бұрын
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.
@SourceAwareness Жыл бұрын
You are Awesome!! Thanks for creating this Great Essay, my Brother. 🙏🏾 Blessings
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much, brother :)
@SourceAwareness Жыл бұрын
@@CinemaAbsurdist Very Welcome! New subscriber here. 😎
@MohnishSinghOfficial Жыл бұрын
Thank you 🖤📽️🚬
@chintanwadhwa Жыл бұрын
4:50 love this part. another amazing video, keep it up ♥️
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you bhai :))
@pankhurijoshi9472 Жыл бұрын
Another great video essay from my favourite channel, did not dissapoint!
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thanks for editing bonkon!
@arytaco5380 Жыл бұрын
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!
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much :)
@seansmith6255 Жыл бұрын
Great analysis
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much!
@LilCrashOutFr Жыл бұрын
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.
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much for your kind words :)
@u-n-i Жыл бұрын
Nice! Not many analyses for this movie on YT
@kindregardless Жыл бұрын
Welles made this film in his 20's. Fucking incredible
@Hastings_Farm Жыл бұрын
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.
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much, you have deeply humbled me :)
@Hastings_Farm Жыл бұрын
@@CinemaAbsurdist Not at all, the essence of a really great film is the discussion that it generates considering the issues that arise. As a story it is possibly fanciful as reality took a leave of absence. The power is within the interaction between the characters as the tale unfolds. In a modern context, one can only wonder whether there are similarities between Charles Foster Kane and Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Neither would appear to have love as a child and both ruthlessly sought it throughout their lives. Kane in a benign way and Putin with ruthless cruelty towards a nation that wants self-determination and freedom for its citizens. Interesting that Citizen Kane was Donald John Trump’s favourite movie. One can only wonder whether he saw himself in Kane. He is very much a man seeking love throughout his life with little evidence of having received any as a child.
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
@@Hastings_Farm very interesting points, thank you for sharing them!
@vijayramesh5572 Жыл бұрын
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 😊
@vijayramesh5572 Жыл бұрын
Your essay are getting good as per time. Keep it up. I love your video essay.
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you so much!
@martymcthatsthemostuseless8250 Жыл бұрын
Goddamn, this channel is seriously underrated. Well done man.
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much! Means a lot!
@axiom1770 Жыл бұрын
no,nolan is nowhere near tarkovsky even comparing them is a slap to tarkovsky's legacy.
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
While I respect your opinion, I disagree. I was merely comparing the filmmakers on one particular theme, not suggesting that either of them are similar filmmakers. Although Tarkovsky was an incredible filmmaker, I do not think comparing the two is anywhere near as insulting as you are suggesting. Nolan is a great filmmaker. Tarkovsky was a great artist.
@axiom1770 Жыл бұрын
@@CinemaAbsurdist meh...dont really like nolan....but this video was a banger dude...great work
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
@@axiom1770 Thank you very much!
@Alex-Ale55 Жыл бұрын
While i agree that Tarkovsky’s perspective added a lot to the landscape of cinema and there s No denying that Tarkovsky is one of the best, however i think people ( i mean critics, not audience ) view Nolan so bad just because of his fanboys ( it s like trying to counter a filmbro with his own weapons, but with deeper cinema weapons ). Keep in mind that the greats of the era were underapreciated just like Nolan is right now. Bergman, Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Hitchcock, Godard, Chaplin, Lang etc were seen as the weird tasteless rebels of cinema.
@homelessathome Жыл бұрын
@@Alex-Ale55 nope, the problem is Nolan himself who is not consistent enough to be mentioned in the same breath with Tarkovsky, Bergman and Kubrick who might have rough times during their respective careers but have always been appreciated by critics, directors and cinema goers alike.
@sheetaltulshian5855 Жыл бұрын
The edit really makes the topic an interesting watch! great job.
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@promethean8232 Жыл бұрын
Never occurred to me that Nolan and tarkovsky were playing on two ends of the same spectrum
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Hope you liked the topic!
@CinemaAbsurdist Жыл бұрын
Which do you prefer? Nolan's fighting with time? Or Tarkovsky's surrendering to it?
@mygumybear6 ай бұрын
Prefer Tarkovsky's time, he make more sense about time in film. I just think that his colour palette is great that complements his time.
@333arianna2 жыл бұрын
nice analysis, keep it up!
@CinemaAbsurdist2 жыл бұрын
Thank you!
@alfonsoospino57262 жыл бұрын
Amazing review, I suscribed
@CinemaAbsurdist2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the sub!
@jadedheartsz2 жыл бұрын
"It was his sled from when he was a kid, there I just saved you two long boobless hours!"
@anshu61432 жыл бұрын
True romance’s dennis hopper is my favorite example of this
@madhands98872 жыл бұрын
Great review
@BigTimeShowdown2 жыл бұрын
Very good.
@debranchelowtone2 жыл бұрын
Good but please don't crop the frame.
@fahmyghaly31752 жыл бұрын
you are a genius man what did you study i want to be like you please tell me
@CinemaAbsurdist2 жыл бұрын
Thank you, you are entirely too kind, my friend. There's a wealth of books on film theory that are very insightful in breaking things down into their building blocks when it comes to cinema. Some of the books I referred to while making this particular videos are Eisenstein's essays on Film Form, Hitchcock/Truffaut, Tarkovsky's Sculpting In Time, and David Mamet's On Directing Film.
@terrysikes66382 жыл бұрын
OH! He said, "Rosebud!" I thought he said, "nosebleed."
@mugunthanjothiraman50752 жыл бұрын
Best explanation. I never observed those details while watching the movie until seeing this video. Hats off sir!
@CinemaAbsurdist2 жыл бұрын
Thank you so much!
@taniavlogs10142 жыл бұрын
Nothing made him happier than his earlier life
@taniavlogs10142 жыл бұрын
Rosebud was his true friend true pleasure... Finally he realized that he should pass his time with his true friend true pleasure with innocence...
@vijayramesh55722 жыл бұрын
Good one!
@CinemaAbsurdist2 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much!
@anjalipalod81562 жыл бұрын
Best.
@CinemaAbsurdist2 жыл бұрын
Same to you.
@inventorx15352 жыл бұрын
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
@CinemaAbsurdist2 жыл бұрын
Agreed! I didn't mean to come across as saying that talented people cannot come from anywhere, I simply meant to challenge the notion that cooking must necessarily mean cooking like a chef.
@inventorx15352 жыл бұрын
@@CinemaAbsurdist indeed it is simply not very clear in the movue what the difference is between a chef coocking and just cooking in general you explain it well
@gustavgnoettgen2 жыл бұрын
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.