Some Thoughts on Citizen Kane (because I'd be the worst Welles fan ever if I wrote about Watchmen instead)

I'm usually surprised when I see a movie more than once or twice and still find something new. And this was my fifth (or sixth?) time viewing Citizen Kane, so the fact that I was still completely engaged in the film and managed to see new things in it is a testament to the genius that was Orson Welles. Two things jumped out at me in this viewing that I'm ashamed to admit I hadn't really thought about before:
1)Leland's position as the "dramatic critic" of the paper: It's referred to several times in the movie, but previously I had just dismissed the repetition of what his job was as just a fun idiosyncrasy of the dialogue. Recently, however, I realized that Leland being a dramatic critic is very representative of his character and his role in the film. Throughout the flashbacks, we see Leland go from Kane's closest friend to his most scathing critic, and his memories in the film are characterized by excessive critical commentary. In the flashbacks, Leland seems to predict everything that happens to Kane, from his immense influence to ultimate moral corruption. Though I think it's an over-simplification of the screenplay to refer to one character as simply "always right", I do think that Leland's character serves as the lens through which we are supposed to see Kane, and therefore his position as a dramatic critic is wonderfully fitting.
2)The last image we see of Kane in the mirrors: Have to admit I'm sort of embarrassed I never caught this use of mirrors in the movie. Not only does it contribute to the whole theme, but I'm also a huge fan of the movie the Lady From Shanghai, where Welles uses mirrors again,so I have no idea how I never caught it here. Nevertheless, it's a truly amazing image, and seems to signify that, although we've seen all we will of Kane, we still don't truly know his character, and can never know. All we've seen of him has been told through the memories of other people, and so our image of him has been completely influenced by other people. We've seen several Kanes in the movie: the little boy who attacks Thatcher with a sled, the ambitious young man who takes charge of a newspaper, the arrogant politician. But each of these Kanes is just a fraction of the man as he truly was: just an image of him as reflected by the various people who knew him.

One last thing (this post is actually turning out much longer that I thought it would): From talking to some of my friends who watched this for the first time, I've noticed that a lot of people were disappointed by the ending, because they felt cheated out of a satisfying answer to what Rosebud. Understandable, but it surprised me that when I first saw the movie a few years ago, I felt none of the same feelings. I think it all depends on hoe you view the movie. If you approach at as simply a mystery, trying constantly to figure out what Rosebud is, then yeah, a sled is infinitely disappointing. Thankfully, I didn't approach the movie this way the first time, purely because if its not a life or death matter I tend to not care about a mystery. Instead, the main thing I was trying to find out throughout the movie was any insight on the character of Kane, played so enigmatically by Orson. In that sense, Rosebud is actually very satisfying, as it provides more insight on the character that none of the other characters could actually see. No, it's not a "key" to Kane's psyche, there is no such thing, but it's important to note that rosebud being Kane's last word IS significant- it is the only thing we see Kane saying in real time, rather than in a flashback related by another person. In a way, the significance of rosebud- a sled signifying lost childhood- is that it remains the only contribution to the character study of the movie that Kane himself gives importance to.

(Did that make sense to anyone but me? I'm on three hours of sleep so I doubt that was very coherent. Apologies.)