The word Rosebud is arguably one of the most famous words ever uttered on the big screen, yet it's significance in the film Citizen Kane, is much debated. While it is clear that Rosebud is a necessary piece of the puzzle that is Citizen Kane, almost seventy years after the films' debut, it is still unclear how it fits together. There are many common explanations for Kanes dying word, which range from Rosebud as an allusion to William Randolph Hearsts personal life, to Freudian explanations about Kanes attachment to his mother. None of these, however, supply the audience with the resolution that they crave. Therefore, in this bibliography I will examine a less intuitive idea put forth by Robert Carringer. This Bibliography tells a story which concludes with the thesis that Rosebud holds no meaning beyond itself. It is a MacGuffin; a mechanism used not to explain the man Charles Foster Kane, but to explore different perspectives about him. 'Rosebud' provides an association to the central symbol of the film (the snow globe, according to Carringer) which shows the audience a more accurate portrait of Kane. I begin by emphasizing that Rosebud is indeed a vital component of Citizen Kane, as is illustrated in an essay by Tony Jackson. I will also illustrate that is seems quite ambiguous to many viewers, including film critic Bosley Crowther. I then show that while Welles himself supplied contradictory explanations for Rosebud in response to media pressures, this inconsistency makes sense in the context of Carringers argument. If Rosebud is indeed a MacGuffin, then Welles would have no real explanation for it independent of the theme of the film. It would therefore be logical that in response to pressures he felt from the audience and the media, he would create meaning that would appease each specific complaint. In the opening of the movie, Rawston creates a premise that Rosebud will explain everything; that Kane is a simple man whose life can be summed in a single word. Thompson provides an opposing view, in which Rosebud is only one of the missing pieces to the portrait of Kane that he is trying to reassemble. In doing so, the film leaves open the question of whether or not Kane can actually be understood by the audience. Had he provided a consistent response for questions concerning Rosebud, Welles would have undermined this central conflict in Citizen Kane. By instead supplying varied responses, Welles leaves the question as an open one. Finally, I will provide additional support for Carringer's theory, taken directly from the words of Orson Welles, and from articles written by other authors. NOTE: This project is most clear if viewed in the order indicated by the numbers in the titles of the sources.

 

Crowther, Bosley. "The Ambiguous 'Citizen Kane'" The New York Times 4 May 1941: X5.

 

This Bosley Crowther review of Citizen Kane accomplishes in highlighting several aspects that contribute to or impede the success of the film. The publicity created by the films possible connection to William Randolph Hearst and his tactics of yellow journalism created an attitude in the public that helped the film succeed. Their dislike of Hearst’s yellow journalism techniques made viewers eager to cling to any attacks on his character, which could be inferred through the portrayal of Kane. While the film fails to conclude that Kane was indeed guilty of yellow journalism or any other amoral actions, the eagerness the audience had to find such connections fueled the success of the film. Also, Crowther praises the innovative film techniques employed by Welles and Toland to make the film a visual masterpiece. The filmmakers mastery of and excitement toward the art of cinema was an incredible contributor to Citizen Kane’s success.

While Crowther does concede that Citizen Kane is quite above average and an overall success, he raises an argument against the film as truly great one. He states that the lack of clarity that the ending brings to the mystery of ‘Rosebud’ makes the theme of the movie ambiguous and vague. As relates to my thesis, the piece provides support for the idea that the intended meaning of ‘Rosebud’ is quite unclear, even to film critics such as Crowther. It pushed me to explore the idea that it’s significance is merely misunderstood as opposed to altogether ambiguous as is asserted by Crowther in this piece. This kind of feedback also pressured Welles to respond with evidence that 'Rosebud' is in fact clear.