Talk:Charles Foster Kane

Film Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]