After watching Citizen Kane for about an hour or so it is readily apparent to any conscious observer that we are no closer to unraveling the identity of Rosebud than we were at the beginning of the movie and that although Rosebud's identity is the drivng force behind the plot it is probably unimportant. I say that because someone would have seen C. F. Kane with Rosebud or at Rosebud if it were. By applying some Holmesian thinking I reasoned that Citizen Kane is similar to a magic show. Welles probably dropped several subtle clues leading to the elusive identity of Rosebud but also threw in some misdirection in the form of the story of C. F. Kane's meteoric rise and fall.
After consulting my Merriam-Webster dictionary I learned a name is what we call a noun and a noun is a person place thing or idea. At this point I doubt that Rosebud is a person because he/she would have come forward, or Kane's close friends would know who Rosebud is. Rosebud is as goofy a name for a person as Tucker Blake Brent or Cody is. Kane probably never met the Rosebud Sioux either. I also doubt Rosebud is an idea because I have never been in a Rosebud state of mind. Although I have no conclusive proof that Rosebud is not a place my intuition tells me that Kane never traveled to Rosebud, Montana. So by process of elimination Rosebud is a thing. The evidence for Rosebud being an item is convincing but not beyond doubt's shadow. We know Kane is a materialistic person. We also know that he built Xanadu and put most of his many possessions there.
Rosebud could be anything from a pet to a statue of a budding rose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Damn good post Danny. Lots of very interesting points. I also took notice of how Welles is probably using Macguffins to lead the people in the wrong direction. But your reasoning was very well thought out and intelligent.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Danny this was a very good post, cleverly written and well reasoned. I believe that your conclusions about who/what Rosebud is/was is probably correct. I love your research especially on Rosebud, Montana, that made me laugh.
ReplyDeleteOne can only stand in silent awe at the crystalline nature of your logical construction. It is pure and incontrovertable.
ReplyDeleteThe Rosebud Souix, I suspect lived along the banks of the meandering stream of the same name, which stream later gave its name to Rosebud, Montana. I wonder why you selected Rosebud, Montana, rather than, say, Rosebud Texas or Rosebud, South Dakota, in your essay. They are both real places also.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think you chose correctly. Montana is a state that has a funnier sounding name than Texas or S.D. probably because it rhymes with "banana" one of my favorite funny words in the English language. It's also way out there in the middle of nowhere, thus unlikely to be Kane's dying thought. Now, had there been a Rosebud, Colorado, that would have been very interesting indeed, considering Kane is from Colorado. But, alas, there is no town of Rosebud in CO.
I like your reference to Kane's materialism. Rosebud is, indeed, a thing. I won't give anymore away than that. It's decidedly ridiculous, as you will discover. Hardly worth our time looking for it. Naturally.
This is a really good post Danny, you have a real talent for writing. I enjoyed the subtle humor that flowed throughout the essay
ReplyDeleteLove the George Carlin allusion
ReplyDeleteDanny has made a very good assumption using his flawless technique. And, he was also funny without making it blatantly obvious that he was trying to be funny. (As I was in my 300 post. I think I was successful.) I can always rely on Danny to make me chuckle with his razor sharp wit.
ReplyDeleteI am trying very hard not to insert something along the lines of "hahahaha" here. This was a very funny post and although most people are not actually laughing aloud when they write "LOL", I actually am. I think you had me at the sarcasm in "any conscious observer", or maybe it was the "Holmesian thinking." Nice logic.
ReplyDelete