Ever feel cheated?

[johnpalmer]

In a story I read, a "jaw dropping" revelation was to be made. Citizen Kane, this big, famous, popular movie, extensively studied, had a huge plot hole in it. What was this big, huge, jaw-dropper?

Simply this: everyone knows Charles Kane died all alone, in his "Xanadu" estate, right? So how did it become known that his "last words" were a single word: "Rosebud".

And I did find that to be an interesting thought - maybe everyone overlooked it, suspension of disbelief or "well, obviously someone heard, somehow!"

I finally watched it, and it was a pretty good flick, though I have no idea why it's praised so much. Maybe I need cinema appreciation lessons, or, maybe I need more information about movies made in and around that time. One thing to remember is that someone needs to show what an art form can do, and once they've shown it, others will follow, and possibly do the exact same thing, better... but the first artist to show off that technique is still the one who saw what could be done.

But as for a plot hole? Geez... they interview his butler, and the butler says, flat out, that he'd heard him say the word, just before he dropped the glass globe on the floor (which is how the movie opens).

So I'm annoyed. Still a good movie, the "jaw dropping" story is still a good story, but, dang, it, I'm annoyed that the bit about the plot hole was so transparently wrong.

Comments

[caltastic]

People forget why Citizen Kane has so much praise — it’s absolutely not the best film ever from a creative standpoint, though that’s what modern pop culture assumes. Instead it’s its technical bona fides that are important: it invented the modern concept of the film soundtrack, and editing and cinematography tricks that are still in use today.

[johnpalmer]

Thank you! But in this case, it wasn't that I "forgot" so much as I didn't know :-).

But I was aware that "dummy" classes like "art appreciation" sometimes made things clear that wouldn't be obvious without them, if they're taught well. I've been watching some old entertainment and thinking on it and how it's put together, and it's interesting; I can see how it could become a trade - something a skilled person could do, sometimes brilliantly, sometimes badly, but generally predictably.

[julian]

Basically, it did a lot of things first, like Caltastic says. Soundtrack. Use of deep focus; allowing use of ceilings (which was hard to do at the time). Stuff like that.

This talks some of it: https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/a-viewers-companion-to-citizen-kane

The plot hole, such as it is, is not that jaw dropping. I consider "alone" in this context to mean "friendless and unhappy," not, "Without a soul in the house ever at all anywhere."

[julian]

(I mean, mind you, I disliked both the plot and the acting. But I watched it as part of an art history course, so that wasn't what I was watching it *for*.)

[johnpalmer]

Well, the plot hole wasn't really even in existence. It's true: if you watch that first scene, you'd assume that was an empty room, where a broken old man spoke a final word, and died. But if you watch the whole movie, you see that, while that scene was spot-on perfect for setting a mood and an idea, you find that the butler heard the word and observed or inferred the dropping of the glass snow-globe. And people would talk, especially given that there's nothing scandalous to report.

If the butler hadn't said that, so clearly, then, yes, there could be debate over whether "anyone had heard his final words". But this wasn't even a need to infer "well, someone had". The flat out say in the movie "and I heard him say it again, just before he dropped the globe..." (close paraphrase).

Thanks for the link! I'll want to review it later. (And I'm pleased that I was self-aware enough to point out that it might be my lack of knowledge that failed to see surprising excellence in the movie!)

[pernishus]

Perhaps the mistaken perception lies in considering the butler to be a human being. Servants, in the perception of the upper classes anyhow, were convenient appliances. We have a false idea about the relationship from the media. I often think in this regard of Pushkin's manservant, who was with him his whole life and outlived him by quite a spell -- yet no one thought it worthwhile to interview him about his master -- and no one did. Auden has a useful essay on the subject of the servant-master relationship in his book The Dyer's Hand.

[johnpalmer]

Hm. You know, as the second person who mentioned this, I'm now starting to wonder if this meant more than I realized. I did know that house servants are invisible, to the point that some even feel a bit uneasy getting personal attention (which isn't really a horrible thing, necessarily - it can be like being called on by the teacher when your hand was flat on the floor, not in the air :-) ).

I still maintain, gently, that this does rob a fine writer of what could have been a great "jaw dropper" of a story, though, which is a shame. Spider sometimes does let "oooh, shiny" beat out "perfectly supported", which is not always a bad thing. For example, I saw one essay that passionately argued that "any space opera that assumes FTL should be more properly labeled fantasy" and I'm not disagreeing - this is a great case of "sufficiently advanced technology" to us. Well, so what? Space opera is a good genre, and I wouldn't want to feel forced to classify the Skylark series as "fantasy" (though I'd have less objection to the Lensmen series being classified as such, for the lens).

(Speaking of which: I bet you'd know if there's any of Doc Smith's old works being recollected/republished... any news? I actually had the full Lensmen/Skylark series, in my hot little hands, but they are gone after multiple moves. I don't know who said it, but there's an idea that "three moves = 1 fire" when it comes to lost stuff. I'd love to give them another read through, when I'm not facing crushing fatigue!)