Following the death of publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane, reporters scramble to uncover the meaning of his final utterance: 'Rosebud.'Following the death of publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane, reporters scramble to uncover the meaning of his final utterance: 'Rosebud.'Following the death of publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane, reporters scramble to uncover the meaning of his final utterance: 'Rosebud.'
- Director
- Writers
- Herman J. Mankiewicz(original screen play)
- Orson Welles(original screen play)
- John Houseman(contributing writer)
- Stars
Top credits
- Director
- Writers
- Herman J. Mankiewicz(original screen play)
- Orson Welles(original screen play)
- John Houseman(contributing writer)
- Stars
- Won 1 Oscar
- 11 wins & 13 nominations total
Videos4
- Director
- Writers
- Herman J. Mankiewicz(original screen play)
- Orson Welles(original screen play)
- John Houseman(contributing writer) (uncredited)
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
- All cast & crew
Storyline
A group of reporters are trying to decipher the last word ever spoken by Charles Foster Kane, the millionaire newspaper tycoon: "Rosebud." The film begins with a news reel detailing Kane's life for the masses, and then from there, viewers are shown flashbacks from Kane's life. As the reporters investigate further, the viewers see a display of a fascinating man's rise to fame, and how he eventually fell off the top of the world. —Zack H. / edited by Rob
- Taglines
- Radio's Most Dynamic Artist . . The Man At Whose Voice A Nation Trembled . . . Now the screen's most exciting NEW star ! ORSON WELLES in the picture Hollywood said he'd never make
- Genres
- Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)
- PG
- Parents guide
Did you know
- TriviaDespite all the publicity, the film was a box-office flop and was quickly consigned to the RKO vaults. At 1941's Academy Awards the film was booed every time one of its nine nominations was announced. It was only re-released to the public in the mid-'50s.
- GoofsDuring the picnic scene towards the end, Welles had to shoot against a back-projection because a location shoot was too costly and time-consuming. The stock footage used for the exterior was taken from King Kong (1933), hence on closer inspection the four birds that fly by are in fact very definite pterodactyls. RKO told Welles to take the pterodactyls out of the shot, but he liked them, and decided to keep them.
- Quotes
Mr. Bernstein: Old age. It's the only disease, Mr. Thompson, that you don't look forward to being cured of.
- Crazy creditsIn a very rare move the director's credit is shown on the same card as the cinematographer's. This was Orson Welles's personal decision to show his thanks to cinematographer Gregg Toland for his enormous contributions to the film, meaning equal rights.
- Alternate versionsThe Italian-language version cut an overwhelming number of scenes, leading to "complete" versions of the film to be circa half of the time in English and only the remaining half in Italian.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Projectionist (1970)
- SoundtracksIt Can't Be Love
(uncredited)
Written by Charlie Barnet and Haven Johnson
Arranged by The King Cole Trio
Performed by Raymond Tate, Buddy Collette, Buddy Banks, CeePee Johnson, and Alton Redd
Top review
Giant of its field
Any art becomes harder to appreciate as time passes. We look at statues and paintings from, lets say the Ancient Greece, and we appreciate them for their aesthetic, their style and the craftsmanship that went into making them. Yet we often know very little about why or even how they were made. Were they political in their time, like art often is nowadays, or were they made simply to feed the artist, like some of the greatest works of art in history have sometimes been made? And if we somehow found out that a painting of a human figure in some prehistoric cave was actually a political satire of the rival clan chief, would it add value to the work?
I ponder this because I don't think I fully get Citizen Kane, or if I even can get it without a degree in history. Back in its days, the film was widely applauded for its groundbreaking style and its cinematographic feats. Orson Welles put himself on the map by pulling off tricks and visuals that had never been seen before. He also based the story of one Charles Foster Kane on a real life business tycoon William Randolph Hearst, a polarizing figure back then, thus tying the film to the days of its release.
And I view this film and I must admit that it didn't blow me away. The cinematography is brilliant and impressive, but I've seen most of the tricks already in newer films, and thus their impact is lessened. And while it's an interesting character study about the meaning of contentment, wealth and American ideals, I was left with the impression that I was missing something. And I think it's that I have no real life parallels to compare this film to. Especially seeing as I'm not an American.
Is it still a good film? Oh, definitely. It's a pioneer of its field, its themes are very deep, it's beautiful on the technical level and even the story, while rather slow, does keep you interested through the capturing presence of Welles' acting. I do recommend seeing it, though I must admit that I respect it more than I like it.
I ponder this because I don't think I fully get Citizen Kane, or if I even can get it without a degree in history. Back in its days, the film was widely applauded for its groundbreaking style and its cinematographic feats. Orson Welles put himself on the map by pulling off tricks and visuals that had never been seen before. He also based the story of one Charles Foster Kane on a real life business tycoon William Randolph Hearst, a polarizing figure back then, thus tying the film to the days of its release.
And I view this film and I must admit that it didn't blow me away. The cinematography is brilliant and impressive, but I've seen most of the tricks already in newer films, and thus their impact is lessened. And while it's an interesting character study about the meaning of contentment, wealth and American ideals, I was left with the impression that I was missing something. And I think it's that I have no real life parallels to compare this film to. Especially seeing as I'm not an American.
Is it still a good film? Oh, definitely. It's a pioneer of its field, its themes are very deep, it's beautiful on the technical level and even the story, while rather slow, does keep you interested through the capturing presence of Welles' acting. I do recommend seeing it, though I must admit that I respect it more than I like it.
helpful•50
- Vartiainen
- Jun 8, 2016
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- American
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $839,727 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $1,627,530
- Gross worldwide
- $1,645,133
- Runtime1 hour 59 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content

Recently viewed
Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.