Talk:Charles Foster Kane

Comment

In the movie, it is only revealed that G.W. Gettys has evidence that implicates Kane as having an affair with Susan Alexander, not that he has any conclusive proof that Kane actually did have an affair. Susan herself denies that there was any affair when confronted by Kane's wife, Emily Norton, and she seems desperately honest when doing so. Kane, meanwhile, seems indignant that Gettys is willing to destroy Susan's reputation for his own political gain and refuses to allow himself to be blackmailed: clearly, he feels like he has nothing to hide. Kane, in the middle of a political campaign, was very image-conscious and fully aware that his campaign for governor hinged on his percieved moral standing in the community. It seems unlikely that he would throw all that away with a casual adulterous affair, though he may not have realized that his actions--going to visit Susan in her apartment (more than once, the movie would seem to suggest)--would have created the opportunity for Gettys to turn the same yellow journalist tactics Kane had employed against others against Kane himself.

It is, of course, entirely possible that Susan Alexander was lying, that Kane DID have a serious lapse in judgement, and that they did indeed have an affair. However the point is that the movie never makes it clear one way or the other. I edited the article to add that element of ambiguity to it. Antodav 18:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with most of the above - it is unclear whether she actually was his mistress. However, he has set her up in a new and expensive apartment (note the change in scene from the start to the end when he is applauding her piano playing), with a friendly young maid rather than her hostile landlady who does not approve of "gentleman callers". Kane's reaction could be injured innocence - or it could be sheer arrogance and anger that Gettys has got the better of him. We don't know.Paulturtle (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Kane's "prose poems" line in the film was misquoted. I changed it to match exactly what Kane said in the movie. Antodav 18:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Fictional versions of real people

Is being genenrally held to be based on Hearst enough to fit this category? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Annenberg .. I thought maybe the movie is secretly really based on Moses Annenberg.. He worked for the Hearst Corporation and FDR threw him in jail before Citizen Kane was released, because he was putting anti-FDR articles in his newspapers (The Philadelphia Inquirer) about the " NEW-PLAN " solution for the great depression. And he died in 1942 right after he got out of jail due to cancer, anyone can guess how he got sick. I didnt post this on the main c.k page cause theres too much stuff on it, but i really think the movie is about him and nobody has ever mentioned this, did Hearst himself mysteriously die? I don't think so, though i don't know much about him. ---Anon.

Actually, I think Charles Kane really does represent Hearst. Possibly Mr. Bernstein represents Moses Annenberg in the film. Bernstein ( a character in the film ) worked for Charles Kane. ---Anon.

Category: His Name

What evidence is there that his son is named Charles Foster Kane? He is referred to only as "Junior" in the movie, which doesn't mean anything at all. His father is clearly referred to as "Jim" in the scene where Thatcher comes to collect him. Seriously people, don't just type stuff because you want to. Do some real research and stop assuming you're smart when you're really just blissfully ignorant.

Charles II?

Show some evidence that his son is Charles III, moron. Otherwise stop changing it. Your whole "since it follows" is original research until you prove otherwise. You don't know what you're talking about, get over yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jakomull (talk • contribs) 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Let's try not to call people names, okay? Anyway, his son was listed as "Charles Foster Kane III" in the credits. You could have found that out on the Internet Movie Database. See here. 67.171.170.241 07:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As if IMDb is a 100% credible source! You can clearly hear Mrs. Kane call her husband, Charles' father, JIM in the movie. Your move.

I didn't claim IMDb was a "100% credible source". I presumed it would provide strong enough evidence that his son was listed "Charles Foster Kane III" in the end credits without you actually having to see the movie. I guess now I can only ask you to watch the film's end credits. 67.171.170.241 17:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Kane's grandfather (or any other ancestor besides his father) could have been Charles Foster I. If his son is indeed Charles Foster Kane III, it does stand to reason that the title character would be Charles Foster Kane II, though the film lists the character as simply Charles Foster Kane. Charles Foster Kane should probably be the title of the article to agree with the film's credits and avoid confusion. Is it possible the original film credits are in error and his son was meant to be Charles Foster Kane II?

Fair use rationale for Image:Citizen Kane.jpg

Image:Citizen Kane.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Relationships

Absolutely nothing on his first wife, Emily. What's up wit dat? MMetro (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OR speculation

For an article relating to one of cinema's most important movies, Charles Foster Kane needs a lot of work. The section "Political views," for instance, is all uncited original-research speculation and POV views. I've removed the most egregious paragraph, filled with POV "as implied by", "apparently" etc., but this section cannot continue to stand in its present form. Without citations from reliable-source authorities on the movie — and there are countless books on Kane — this section is all original research. Ff cites cannot be found, it needs to be removed. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Potential merge candidate

He may be the main character in the most critically-acclaimed American film, but I do wonder whether this article is an unneccesary duplicate of Citizen Kane; most of this is a fairly interpretive biography of a fictional character from one famous film without any critical commentary; the bits that do feature commentary (i.e. "political views") appear to be original research. I would suggest that any useful parts (the inspiration section, for example), would be of more use in the main article. Bob talk 23:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Misquote

If I remember correctly, Jed Leland is the one who tells Charlie Kane to be careful not to make promises he can't keep, not Mr. Bernstein. Andacar 02:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andacar (talk • contribs)

No, it's Bernstein.Paulturtle (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Asperger's syndrome?

As someone that Asperger's syndrome has (I do not have it -- it has me), I see uncanny similarities between the character (except for his wealth) and me. He's cold and unfeeling. He's humorless and self-righteous. He can show an intense focus on something that takes time to achieve, such as doing jigsaw puzzles. Everything that he does is an act.

No, he is not an evil person. He offends people because he does not understand their emotions, and not out of malice or predatory design. Yes, he can hurt people with his sadistic humor (as with the opera singer). He is not a sociopath who acts with brutality or cheats people in well-planned schemes.

Villain? No -- but he can certainly put people off. Pbrower2a (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source discussing this before we could add anything along these lines to the article. DonIago (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I would not dare put this aspect of the character in the main article. This is personal experience, and if it is a unique observation it probably has no reliable source behind it. For Wikipedia I would not be a reliable source even about myself.

There are other characters with Asperger's in cinema, and one might have to wait for some college-level textbook to discuss this about Charles Foster Kane. Pbrower2a (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC).

Sheet Music

My recollection is that shops in the 1910s or earlier used to stock sheets of the latest popular songs for people to buy, this being before most people had radios but when cheap pianos were a common aspirational household item. I daresay the shop might have stocked hymns and classical pieces as well, so Susan's job when they meet would have been a bit like being in charge of the LP and pop single records in a shop in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. A cultural reference which is probably unknown to most people nowadays. I think we'd need a source though.Paulturtle (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)