Welles, Orson. "Orson Welles on Citizen Kane and Rosebud." Interview with Bernard Braeden. Canadian Broadcasting Company. Canada. 1960. <http://www.youtub.com/watch?v=ml3eBTMXSiU> 11 Nov. 2008.

This 1960 interview of Welles by Bernard Braeden on behalf of the Canadian Broadcasting Company was conducted in Welles’ Paris home. The interview as a whole is focused on Citizen Kane and Welles’ thoughts about the film almost 20 years after it’s release, but a significant portion is concerned more specifically with Welles’ conception of ‘Rosebud.’ In the tagged clip, at the two minute mark, Welles states that he is “ashamed of Rosebud,” that it is a “tawdry device” and a “dollar-book Freudian gag.” He calls it the thing he likes least about all of the film.

This interview is striking evidence of Welles ever changing explanation of ‘Rosebud.’ In this interview, he contradicts statements he had previously published about it’s meaning. This shift follows a shift in the type of criticism the film was receiving. Initially, viewers were left confused by the vagueness of the symbol, so Welles provided a concrete explanation (4). Here, conversely, Welles is responding to the critique that the use of the symbol ‘Rosebud’ is a hinderance to the creation of a complete portrait of Kane. In response, Welles is rejecting the concept as forcefully as possible. His criticism, in fact, seems to be a direct response to the explanation he published in 1941 about his purpose in making Citizen Kane. In his 1941 statement, he uses psychological concepts of transference and attachment to explain ‘Rosebud,’ whereas he calls it a “dollar book Freudian gag” in this interview. This is strong support for the idea that because ‘Rosebud’ carries no meaning separate from the theme of the film, Welles’ explanations for the symbol come in response to outside pressures.

Rosenbaum, Jonathan, ed. "Orson Welles and Peter Bogdanovich." This Is Orson Welles. By Orson Welles, Peter Bogdanovich and Jonathan Rosenbaum. New York: Da Capo P, Incorporated, 1998. Guaymas Chapter.

This Guaymas Chapter of This is Orson Welles is composed of material from a three-hundred and twenty-two page interview that Peter Bogdanovich conducted with Orson Welles. The interview was then edited and supplemented with primary sources by editor Jonathan Rosenbaum. The interview touches on almost all of Welle’s works, however, I will focus on it’s implications about Citizen Kane. Interestingly, the interview begins by exploring the topic of Hearst’s intervention. Welles states that he felt more pressure from those intervening on behalf of Hearst than from Hearst himself. By this point, Welles is no longer denying that Kane is based on Hearst, but is instead defending that Susan was not at all a reflection of Marion Davies. Discussion then moves to the topic of Herman Mankiewicz. In this interview, Welles gives Mankiewicz complete credit (or responsibility) for the idea of ‘Rosebud.’ He also goes on to say that he is not at all fond of the idea, and that he in fact did all he could to provide disclaimers for the symbolism implied by Kane’s dying word. The rest of the interview addresses issues and ideas from films other than Citizen Kane.

This interview represents another major change in Orson Welles’ attitude towards ‘Rosebud.’ With the ideas he asserts in this interview, he not continues to show that he is dissatisfied with what the symbol 'Rosebud' represents, but also removes the blame of ‘Rosebud’s’ failure from himself and places it on Mankiewicz, even stating that he took efforts to reduce the effect that the symbol had. This concept of ‘Rosebud’ as a weakness to the film is in stark contrast to the views Welles expressed in sources such as his 1941 statement about the purpose of Citizen Kane (4). It is, however, very much in line with the criticisms that reviewers began to voice after the films release, such as in Joy Davidman's Citizen Kane (5). This source supports the idea put forth in my thesis that Welles explanation of ‘Rosebud’ is dependent on media pressures because it carries almost no significance of it’s own. Welles had also previously rejected the idea of 'Rosebud' while still taking responsibility for the idea, as in his 1960 interview for the CBC (6), but now he refuses to take responsibility for the idea he sees as a failure.

Kael, Pauline. "II. Raising Kane." The New Yorker 27 Feb. 1971: 44.

(The Kael essay was published in two parts, 3a. is the first half as published in the February 20th, 1971 issue of the New Yorker, and 3b. is the second half as published in the February 27th, 1971 issue. Therefore, the annotations for the two parts are the same because they explain a single source.)

In this almost book-length essay, Pauline Kael provides a comprehensive and incredibly detailed examination of the film Citizen Kane. She asserts the premise that the risky subject material and the genius of those involved in the filmmaking process lead to a film that is as successful and real today as it was on it’s opening night in 1941. Her glowing review begins by addressing the film techniques that separate Citizen Kane from other movies of it’s time. It then moves to discuss the affect that the William Randolph Hearst controversy had on the success of the movie, concluding that Hearst was quite unable to limit the value of the film. However, she does note that RKO’s delay in releasing the film made it seem to have questionable popularity, which effectively reduced the popularity of the film. The bulk of Kael’s essay is dedicated to exploring how script-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz fits into the making of Citizen Kane. Mankiewicz is ignored by most reviews of the film, (largely due to direct actions taken by Welles) but Kael provides convincing arguments that it is Mankiewicz who deserves credit for some of the genius we often give to Welles. Her portrayal of Welles is not always complimentary as she reveals her view that Mankiewicz was treated very unfairly by Welles and the film community as a whole. Finally, Kael goes on to explain many of the symbols and mysteries contained in Citizen Kane. It is impossible to describe all that Kael covers in Raising Kane because it is both deep and comprehensive, but these are a representative sample of the arguments she defends.

Most applicable to my thesis is Keal’s discussion of the meaning of ‘Rosebud’. Notably, she highlights Orson Welles own conflicts about what to make of the mysterious symbol. She cites a discussion Welles has with Mrs. Alexander in which, when asked about the meaning of ‘Rosebud,’ he responds by saying that “My dear Mrs. Alexander, I don’t know, I’m making it up as I go along.” This quote illustrates that, concerning ‘Rosebud,’ Welles had to go through the same search for meaning that audiences must still undertake today. Again, this sort of assertion created a need for Welles to explain that he did indeed have and know a purpose for the symbol 'Rosebud.'

Kael, Pauline. "I. Raising Kane." The New Yorker 20 Feb. 1971: 43.

(The Kael essay was published in two parts, 3a. is the first half as published in the February 20th, 1971 issue of the New Yorker, and 3b. is the second half as published in the February 27th, 1971 issue. Therefore, the annotations for the two parts are the same because they explain a single source.)

In this almost book-length essay, Pauline Kael provides a comprehensive and incredibly detailed examination of the film Citizen Kane. She asserts the premise that the risky subject material and the genius of those involved in the filmmaking process lead to a film that is as successful and real today as it was on it’s opening night in 1941. Her glowing review begins by addressing the film techniques that separate Citizen Kane from other movies of it’s time. It then moves to discuss the affect that the William Randolph Hearst controversy had on the success of the movie, concluding that Hearst was quite unable to limit the value of the film. However, she does note that RKO’s delay in releasing the film made it seem to have questionable popularity, which effectively reduced the popularity of the film. The bulk of Kael’s essay is dedicated to exploring how script-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz fits into the making of Citizen Kane. Mankiewicz is ignored by most reviews of the film, (largely due to direct actions taken by Welles) but Kael provides convincing arguments that it is Mankiewicz who deserves credit for some of the genius we often give to Welles. Her portrayal of Welles is not always complimentary as she reveals her view that Mankiewicz was treated very unfairly by Welles and the film community as a whole. Finally, Kael goes on to explain many of the symbols and mysteries contained in Citizen Kane. It is impossible to describe all that Kael covers in Raising Kane because it is both deep and comprehensive, but these are a representative sample of the arguments she defends.

Most applicable to my thesis is Keal’s discussion of the meaning of ‘Rosebud’. Notably, she highlights Orson Welles own conflicts about what to make of the mysterious symbol. She cites a discussion Welles has with Mrs. Alexander in which, when asked about the meaning of ‘Rosebud,’ he responds by saying that “My dear Mrs. Alexander, I don’t know, I’m making it up as I go along.” This quote illustrates that, concerning ‘Rosebud,’ Welles had to go through the same search for meaning that audiences must still undertake today. Again, this sort of assertion created a need for Welles to explain that he did indeed have and know a purpose for the symbol 'Rosebud.'