Citizen Kane: From Log Cabin to Xanadu

Abstract Although The idea of embarking on a new analysis of the most written-about film in film history is daunting, I am using Citizen Kane for a specific and experimental purpose. That is, I want to speculate about certain areas of overlap between psychoanalysis and history and use the film, as it were, as a guinea pig. I have two further excuses for this project. First, although the history in question here is primarily that of the United States, I have tried to approach that history from a European perspective which, I feel, illuminates aspects of the film that have been over-looked. Second, I am applying the film theory and criticism of my generation to this film, which has been put through the mill by each generation of critics since it appeared in 1941. The main influences on my thought have been psychoanalytic theory and feminism, and both have strongly inflected my analysis of Citizen Kane. Although the presence of feminism in this essay may not be obvious at first glance, the principles of feminist film theory have not only molded my way of thinking about cinema in general, but have necessarily informed my approach throughout this Citizen Kane enjoyed a spectacular critical reception. American novelist John O ‘Hara, writing for Time magazine, said quite simply that it was the best motion picture he had ever seen. ‘ Other serious reviewers in this country didn ‘t debate whether or not it was unusually good, but whether or not it was a great, even revolutionary, achievement. Meanwhile, Kane was the subject of considerable controversy in Hollywood; it was nominated for nine Academy Awards but received only one, for best original screenplay by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles, who were booed by detractors at the award ceremony.