Yeah - I don't see the swastika - sometimes people see what they want to see.

I think CK's a complex film - and what appeals about it is that what it talks about is still relevant today - it is a very human story -- CFK doesn't just get rejected by people - he continually rejects people in his pursuit of power, and there are consequences if you are going to do thing like that.

The 'Rosebud' reference (beginning and the end), is the only time he was ever happy.

I get your reference for the Nazi's but then Hitler is playing out the Faustian process, so why refer to Hitler, when you can go direct to source? The Faustian reference, I believe, is further emphasized by the fact that the sledge is burned - that's got to be a reference, there?

And I do think that OW is saying that it's all Hitler-esque, but there's a bunch of Hitlers out there in prominent positions, but Hearst is as good an example as anyone, and at the time he was relevant - but you could choose anyone at any time - look at Murdoch today, involving the police and papers in corruption, selling phone-calls of the parents of dead children -- the pursuit of power often result in the complete loss of a moral compass. True then; true today.

Hearst was no doubt an inspiration, but it is not a biography of Hearst. Kane is his own character.

The Faustian images are there, no doubt with many others. The political part of the story is very brief. It's just one part.

There is the image of the fireplace with the demon looming near them. The smoke at the end. All kinds of images.

Hey Kev!

I disagree entirely  

It is allegorical.

In Hearst's life is everything that you need to know about Hitler's inspiration.

And, I believe, we can trace this back to Aristotle's dramatic structure, on the one hand, and his theory of Ethics on the other. CFK fails on both Aristotle's Ethics and Politics -- and really how can you split the two?

It is a biography on Hearst, as much as it is a biography on Hitler. It's, to my mind, about what unites the two, and by this I don't mean historically, I mean in the furture as well -- in times to come will anyone follow a route that will mirror both Hearst and Hitler? Is this bound to happen given the human frailties that OW is referring to? Yes, I think it will -- in as much it is a biography of wickedness and where its root lie, and how it develops and manifests itself.

You will see Hearsts, Hitlers, Murdochs in every age, and that moral vacuum was referred to as long ago as Aristotle's time, and that is why it is a story for all ages.

I'm not sure I follow how you disagree, Simon. I'm not even really clear on what you are saying.

Hearst inspired Hitler?

I don't see how this is a biography on Hitler, either.

It is not a biography of anyone. Because of the wealthy newspaper magnate angle, it's inspired by Hearst, but I read up a little, and OW said there are other sources of inspiration. Kane is a fictional character.

I think we can think of examples of that in our own writing, where we create a character that is initially inspired by a real person, but ultimately it is an independent character with its own motives and history.

I'm not to comfortable with comparing Hearst or Murdoch to Hitler. The concentration of power has some similarity, but political power is hard to compare to media power, or wealth.

Also, I don't believe the story is at all about wickedness. Not even close. Kane is not wicked. He might be cold inside, empty, or controlling, but not wicked. He treats his staff well, even generally treats his family and friends well. He just does so in a way which defies real human connection. Which he longs for in a primitive, undeveloped way. He just had no idea how.

Which to me, and this is just my amateur thought, is the other point of rosebud. The main thing is it shows us his longing for his childhood, the one pure time in his life when human connections were real. But to me, there was something else. When they sent Kane away as a boy with the banker, he was deprived of normal human relationships, raised by a banker. So his personality, from an emotional standpoint, is frozen at that boy level, when all you are aware of is your own wants. It's like a kid in the store demanding his parent buys him something. Every kid is like that. Kane freezes at this emotional level. He never goes through normal emotional growth.

His growth is also stunted by his wealth. From the moment he leaves home, every single person in his life is there because of the money. There is not one relationship he can learn give and take. He longs for bonding, but never learns how to do it. All he learns is to acquire things, which is not the same. Again, check out the scene when Lleland asks to be transferred to Chicago. After agreeing, Kane tries to drink with him, but Lleland refuses. The pain is all over Kane's face. No matter what he does, no one connects with him.

The movie is effective and dark because he wants these human connections, but just has no idea. All he understands is acquiring. Like a little boy.

Well, my crazy notion anyway.

Okay. Maybe we just have different takes on it - you're looking at a lot of personal detail (life is in the detail) - I'm kind of looking at the wider picture - which I do think is being told. I'm tempted to watch it again now - I might see it in a different way.

Great film and an interesting appraisal of the film.

You're very correct about his stalled development. There's the great scene where he's playing with the sled in the background and other people are deciding his future inside.

The step father figure knows that what they are doing to him isn't right, but he has neither the power nor the intelligence to really stand up to the others.

At its heart I always took it as an exploration of what makes a man...is it what others say, or what's in his heart? Everyone has a different idea of him...he's a socialist to some and a fascist to others. In the end we get to see that he's still the little boy who just wanted to be loved and play. This is what the first part of the film is instructing us...it's showing all the different public faces of the man, instructing us to piece him together like the jigsaws his wife keeps doing, and showing us that this man is a puzzle, just like everyone else.

THe jigsaw struck me as such a cool potential metaphor, though to be honest, I didn't know what it stood for. I've never taken a film class, so I make some uncommon and mistaken inferences it seems.

All I could think of while watching was how she was obsessed with putting together the broken pieces of her life, but couldn't.

His political philosophy I don't think was too important. It was his motive that counted, and making him a liberal politically served to highlight his empty motive through contrast. He campaigns for the little guy, the working stiff, the downtrodden. But he could care less about them. He is trying to buy their love, just like he does everyone in his life(and the film wants us to draw that lesson, too).

Not only will he buy their love, but he will then own them. Just like the employees he bought from a rival paper. And he will control them. That's what he does with Susan. And the more she resents his control, the greater the distance grows between them.

He is not a fascist. But he is a would-be dictator, and the images of Nazi Germany are always powerful in evoking this, but certainly in 1941. I could be wrong, but the hall where he gives the speech seemed to evoke Hitler with the grandiosity and the gestures. There are references in dialogue before that there will be no stopping him.

Regarding the step father,  he caves in as soon as he finds out the money they will be getting to live on. So he knows, but is essentially a selfish man, perhaps contributing to the shaping of the son. The father is selfish, while the mother is not, but is utterly cold. Not surprising that someone born of this might be emotionally stunted.

Then two other factors doom him. First, as said, he's raised by a banker, business people paid to mind him. But then even beyond that, because he's rich, he can never trust any friendship, and no human connection develops normally.

There are fundamental questions sparked here that anyone can ask. The people one helps, are you buying their love? Or do you really care? It's a fair question, and nothing wrong with asking it.

Rick, I always respect your opinion on film. What classics to you suggest? I have a lot to learn. What are your favorites?

I know you asked Rick but I couldn't resist.

Clockwork Orange, Sunset Blvd.  and, of course, Casablanca  or any 50s - early 60s Hitchcock.

I don't know if you like foreign films or not but if you want to see film as art then Felini's Roma is excellent (though Casanova is more accessible).   You might like something by Godard as well Breathless or Truffaut The 400 Blows  or my favourite Resnais Hiroshima, mon amour.   There is also Bergman The Seventh Seal

If you want to see a movie about a Nazi's then see Seven Beauties, The Night Porter or even Life is Beautiful.

If you were looking for historical films then that is a slightly different list and what would head that list would be Battleship Potemkin by Sergei Eisenstein which virtually created much of our modern film language - including the montage.

I'm going to pile on despite not having been asked either.  

I think All Quiet on the Western Front is one of the "perfect" films of all time.

For me, it's always a toss-up for funniest movie of all time between Duck Soup and Modern Times.  Both are excellent films apart from being very funny -- Modern Times in particular, of course.

Leave Her to Heaven is one of the great noir thrillers of all time (and in colour, no less!).  

Wilder's The Lost Weekend is probably the greatest Hollywood film about alcoholism, even if it doesn't have Nicolas Cage.

And I don't know if this is quite old enough to be in that 'classic' category, but Michael's got one from 1971, so I'll say 1972's Sleuth, last film as director for the great Joseph L. Mankiewicz, is one of the best movies ever made.

Thanks, guys. Some of these I've seen, but before I was writing screenplays, so before I was trying to learn anything from them.

Most of them I've never heard of.

Clockwork actually really disappointed me. Cassablanca I liked.

I'll see if any are on Netflix. And then some of them can be found on Youtube or Chinese sites.

I watched one in Chinese the other night. I had seen it before and just wanted to record the beats, but it was dubbed all in Chinese. No, I don't speak it.

The classics… Along with Citizen Kane, I’d say Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Singing In The Rain, Casablanca, Ben Hur, Sunset Boulevard, the Hitchcock quad of North By Northwest, Rear Window, Psycho, and Vertigo. For the comedies, The Apartment, Some Like it Hot, and It Happened One Night.

Looking over my own list I guess it could be said these are too obvious, and are easy choices. But the reason they are easy choices is because they are great movies.

Quoted from Michael what would head that list would be Battleship Potemkin by Sergei Eisenstein which virtually created much of our modern film language - including the montage.

Come on, Michael, we're all movie buffs here.  Don't try and name something obscure when we all know 'Rocky' had the first montage.

Maybe because it's sentimental to me and I like to put a lot of emphasis on performances and dialogue, but 'Meet John Doe' was always one of my favorites.  I know Frank Capra may be a by the book, formulaic director, but I like how his movies explore the dark 'inner' person in everybody, even when we're considered heroes.  Even goofy heroes.

Quoted from rc1107 Come on, Michael, we're all movie buffs here.  Don't try and name something obscure when we all know 'Rocky' had the first montage.

BP is not obscure at all.  It's in every film history book there is and is required viewing for any film student.    You can even find the entire movie on You Tube - so there's no excuse.