Everyone knows or has heard of this famous line from Citizen Kane, and yet many have called Citizen Kane the greatest cinematic achievement of all time. It is indeed a true masterpiece of acting, screen writing, and directing. Orson Welles, its young genius director, lead actor, and a co-writer, used the best talents and techniques of the day (Bordwell 103) to tell the story of a newspaper giant, Charles Kane, through the eyes of the people who loved and hated him. However, when it came out, it was scorned by Hollywood and viewed only in the private theaters of RKO, the producer.
This was all due to the pressure applied by the greatest newspaper man of the time, one of the most powerful men in the nation, the man Citizen Kane portrayed as a corrupt power monger, namely William Randolph Hearst. People notice the similarities between Hearst and the movie Citizen Kane, but they do not recognize the fact that the movie made public the acts in which Hearst conducted business. This man and his unwarranted bibliography showed many other business owners how to conduct their ways. They used any means to collect the best reporters, and they paid to have the best stories.
Little did Hearst and Welles know was that they would set a standard for the way owners of tabloids do business today. They gave rise to modern day sensationalism that tabloids owners and editors use to collect the best stories and writers money can buy. One cannot ignore the striking similarities between Hearst and Kane. In order to make clear at the outset exactly what he intended to do, Orson Welles included a few details about the young Kane that, given even a rudimentary knowledge of Hearst’s life, would have set one thinking about the life of that newspaper giant.
Shortly after the film opens, a reporter is seen trying to discover the meaning of Kane’s last word, “Rosebud. ” He begins his search by going through the records of Kane’s boyhood guardian, Thatcher. The scene comes to life in midwinter at the Kane boarding house. Kane’s mother has come into one of the richest gold mines in the world through a defaulting boarder, and at age twenty-five, Kane will inherit his sixty million dollars (Citizen Kane).
His mother is doubtful of the quality of the education her son will receive in Colorado, and therefore wishes to send her son to study with Thatcher. Hearst’s parents came by their money through gold mines (Swanberg 5), so both Hearst and Kane were raised with “golden” spoons in their respective mouths. Kane is unusually devoted to his mother, as shown when he turns away from his father to listen to his mother, and when he only pays heed to his mother’s answers to his questions (Citizen Kane).
Hearst likewise was completely devoted to his mother. He was sheltered from the real world by his mother and her money for most of his young life, rarely even seeing his traveling father (Swanberg 25). Also, Kane’s dying word and the name of his childhood sled, “Rosebud,” (Citizen Kane) was the name of a town twenty miles east of where Hearst’s parents were born and grew up (Robinson 13). Everything from the newsreel at the start of the film on Kane’s life matches Hearst’s almost perfectly.
Kane ran over thirty newspapers, radios, and syndicates, had a well publicized romantic affair, tried in vain to be elected to public office, was totally and completely careless with his money, (always expecting there would be much more coming), and built himself a pleasure palace called Xanadu, which included a gigantic collection of statues and animals (Citizen Kane). Hearst also did all these things over the course of his life, which further served to convince movie viewers of Welles’ libelous intentions in the making of the movie. (Swanberg).
After the opening newsreel on Hearst’s life, the movie goes through the boyhood scene where Thatcher takes Kane away from his parents. It then quickly shifts to a point twenty years later, when Kane is about to inherit the sixth largest private fortune in the world. Thatcher is concerned that Kane won’t know his place in the world, and his fears are affirmed when Kane sends a telegram saying that he has no interest in gold mines or banks, but, rather, he would like to take over a small newspaper of which Thatcher has taken possession, the Morning Inquirer, because, “I think it would be fun to write a newspaper” (Citizen Kane).
The circumstances under which Hearst entered the newspaper world were very similar. Hearst’s father, a nearly illiterate mining tycoon, owned a newspaper in San Francisco, The Examiner, which he used as nothing more than a political organ to further his candidacy for a seat in Congress (Swanberg 26). Against his father’s wishes for him to enter the world of mining, young Hearst took control of the paper to try to reverse his father’s enormous losses on it (Swanberg 47). Both Hearst and Kane immediately began to revolutionize everything about their respective papers.
Kane literally moved in to the office so that he might be constantly around his paper, constantly able to redo it at any hour, night or day. He makes it quite clear that, from now on, The Examiner was going to do more than just report what the current editor considered “newsworthy. ” It was going to report all news, large or small, especially if it could be made into a sensation and sell newspapers. And if there was no current sensation, Kane would create the news. Hearst did the same thing, revolutionizing his paper to take on “undignified topics” to gain circulation, sporting shocking headlines and stories of “crime and underwear.
In a classic example of similarity, Kane nearly quoted Hearst exactly: “You supply the prose and poems, I’ll supply the war,” (Orson Wells, Citizen Kane) as Kane discussed what to telegram back to a man in Cuba. Hearst was very much anti-Spanish during the Cuban revolution, and if not for his efforts, it is probable that the war would not have even been fought. But Hearst, who would do anything for a headline, cooked up incredibly falsified tales of Spanish brutality.
As stories of Cuban injustice became old news to the public, especially as there was no real war, a reporter telegraphed Hearst that he would like to leave. Hearst replied, “Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war. ” (Swanberg 127) Such an obvious similarity can only have been deliberate, as Kane practically quoted Hearst. In the movie, Thatcher was furious with Kane’s success in attacking trusts in defense of “the people” and providing false headlines such as those about the Spanish Armada being anchored off of the Jersey coast, a headline printed with virtually no proof to substantiate it.
Kane even used his paper to attack a company of which he himself, along with Thatcher, was the major shareholder. As Thatcher prepared to leave after his discussion with Kane on what new is, he mentioned to Kane his enormous losses, which totaled one million dollars for the year, a staggering sum to have been lost by one person, especially at that time. Kane,. however, laughed it off, joking that, at that rate, he’ll have to close down in sixty years (Citizen Kane). All these things were characteristic of Hearst as well.
He attacked the trusts in favor of “the people” (a favorite phrase of Hearst’s) and hired lawyers to try to get injunctions against the trusts and eventually destroy them. He supported the eight hour workday and the labor unions (Swanberg 235). He made up headlines preying on people’s fear and hatred of Spain and Japan which, not coincidentally, he had aroused by previous articles in The Examiner and other publications of his about Spanish atrocities in Cuba and the “yellow menace” of Japan (Swanberg 122, 352) Hearst threw money away as though to him it literally grew on trees.
A man with an income of fifteen million dollars a year at the height of his power, he had almost no savings and sometimes had to borrow money (Swanberg 88). Right after taking over The Inquirer, as told now by Bernstein, Kane ordered the editor to play up less “important” stories for the paper, the kinds of things that the nation wanted to see and read about, not just boring, plain “news. ” He became very involved in the editorial content of his paper, constantly trying to make it better that the rest, staying up late, thinking of headlines and ideas for scoops.
Kane went to the office of The Chronicle, his main competition, to admire the best newspaper staff in the world and its gigantic circulation, and soon after he bribed those same men with large sums of cash to move from The Chronicle to his newspaper, achieving in six years what it took The Chronicle twenty years to accomplish. He also married the president’s niece, Emily (Citizen Kane). These were very Hearst-like maneuvers in many ways. First, as stated before, Hearst loved to embellish and exaggerate the news to get circulation.
Second, Hearst was constantly stealing talented newspapermen from other newspapers, a practice which annoyed such men as Joseph Pulitzer to no end. (Pulitzer’s World was Hearst’s favorite publication) (Swanberg 95). Hearst paid any salary he had to without a care, for he had millions his disposal, since his father was still funding the enterprise. Hearst also married a young Millicent Willson, a parallel to Kane’s Emily (Swanberg 246). Bernstein’s narration ended with a telegram from Kane announcing his purchase of the largest diamond in the world.
Bernstein commented to Leland, Kane’s best friend, that Kane was not collecting diamonds, but collecting someone else who was collecting diamonds (Citizen Kane). This is an early hint at Kane’s belief that one could buy love like anything else, which is one of Welles’ main criticisms of Hearst, and is shown as Kane’s fatal flaw. It is certainly one of the main reasons Welles made the movie about Hearst in the first place. The next scene opens with Leland, one of Kane’s only friends.
Leland continued Bernstein’s stories of Kane’s belief in the ability to purchase love, and hinted at the one overwhelming thing about him, the absolute enigma he posed to even his closest friends. Leland explained how no one could understand Kane because of the contradictions in his beliefs and life. He said that, “Maybe Charlie wasn’t brutal, he just did brutal things,” (Citizen Kane) explaining how Kane, while a firm believer in the government and law, couldn’t see how it applied to him. Hearst, who was an incredible egomaniac, shared the same beliefs. He was in constant conflict with himself.
For instance, he supported the coal strikers while being backed by Tammany Hall, the very head of the Democratic party machine with close ties to big business (Swanberg 238-245). This trait is the one which Kane played out to full effect in his movie. Once the audience was sure that they were seeing Hearst up there, Welle’s could explain the problems of a man like Hearst, a man who had to have his own way. His want at the moment was the largest paper in New York, but that would soon change. Leland told of Kane’s arguments with his wife, which climaxed with Kane’s ultimate statement of his belief in his own omnipotence.
When Kane’s wife begins, “People will think,” he completes the sentence for her with, “What I tell them to think! ” (Citizen Kane). Everything about Hearst’s manner of speaking and his beliefs pointed to that fact that he was an egomaniac as well, a firm believer in his own power. The one thing Kane wanted in his life, Leland explained, was love, but it was the one thing he never found. He wanted the people to love him just as his newspaper staff did, and he went about making sure that it occurred by entering the world of politics.
Right before his campaign for governor, Kane met a pretty, young opera singer named Susan Alexander and entered into a relationship with her. Then he made his incredible bid for governorship on an independent ticket, an office which, for him, would have been the easy first step to the White House (Citizen Kane). Once again, the detailed similarities to Hearst’s life were astounding. Hearst sought public office after his dominance over the newspaper world was assured. The key office he sought, and which was denied to him by attacks by Theodore Roosevelt, was the governorship of New York on an independent ticket.
Both of the men used dirty and abusive campaigning methods, portraying their opponents as jailbirds in their publications. Had Hearst been elected, he would most likely have become president soon after. Here, however, both in the movie and in Hearst’s life, the family obsession about the newspapers began to dissolve. Kane left the running of his newspapers to other men, not taking as much of an interest in them anymore. Hearst did likewise, ending his earlier practices of obtaining good men at any cost. A man had to work to keep his job, and it could be snatched away at any moment by “The Chief” (Swanberg 263).
Hearst also met a beautiful young actress, Marion Davies, and took her as his mistress (Swanberg 402). At this point, however, the two tales differ. Kane was defeated in the election when his affair with Ms. Susan Alexander was exposed by his opponent, Jim Gettys, who basically ordered Kane and Emily to come to see Ms. Alexander. Again Kane’s towering egocentricity showed through when he completely disregarded everyone else’s wishes and declared that only he decided what C. F. Kane did. As Gettys left, Kane flew into a rage and screamed, “I’m Charles Foster Kane, and I’m going to send you to Sing Sing, Gettys, Sing Sing!
The next day, the papers were filled with the story, and Kane lost the election (Citizen Kane). Hearst, on the other hand, was defeated by the president himself and people using his own newspapers against him, but it served Welles’ purpose better to have Kane defeated by his own greed. After all of these truths about business came forth, many other editors and owners of newspapers took advantage of them. Hearst is credited as being the father of American tabloids by setting the standards for the way that its business is conducted (Robinson 37).
As everyone knows being a tabloid reporter is a dirty business, but try being a tabloid owner. Now that can be a real challenge. With each company trying to come up with an outrageous story to top the other’s; things can become dangerous in the heat of battle. As illustrated with Hearst, owners will pay anything for a story because the money is always there. The bigger the story the more revenue from sales each paper is likely to receive. In the newspaper business there are no rules for stabbing a friend in the back. This goes for regular news papers too. Each company will go beyond normal boundaries to get the scoop on a rival paper.
A lot of money is exchanged for information that can lead to big stories or is given to make up stories. This is all in a days work for an editor of a paper. These things are overlooked by the public because we take for granted what read in the papers is true or has some truth to it, regardless if it is a tabloid or city newspaper. As a reporter for the San Diego Star reports, ” If the subject is unwilling to give up the information I need for my report, I may try to slip them a fifty” ( Franco 27). This process of paying off sources for information is still used today. Many reporters would be nowhere without the aid of money.
As the saying goes “Money talks, Bullshit walks. ” This shows that anything can be bought a price, and everyone has a price. . . it just depends on what that price is. Even good reporters come at a price. With the money that each company generates they can buy better and better reporters to write their illustrious material. Hearst went to no ends to find the best people in the business. He even married a rivals daughter to have access to her father’s company in some way (Swanberg 247) today reporters sign contracts with companies to do so many stories with them or for so many years.
This prevents jumping from side to side, but promotes the fact of job security. If you have leeway by saying the opponent will pay this much for you for this long then you can bargain with the editor or owner. You can sort of blackmail them into buying you out. On the other hand the owners have control over you after you sign with them for a period of time. You become helpless which is what the owners want from you: selfless dedication. With people relying on news so much today Kane’s statement after people will think- “What I tell them to think” (Citizen Kane) has more truth to it than people want to believe.
Contrary to many peoples belief people out there find the stories in the National Inquirer and World Post to be true. This shows how much the media can influence the publics ideas. Take for example how well Hearst portrayed the Spanish during the Cuban Revolution. He almost single handily kept the war going on for many more months. Although some found his stories to be a gross exaggeration, many people bought into the idea that things were worse off than they really were. Even today in our own society stories are blown out of proportion.
The tabloids like to take advantage of compromising situations that people are placed in, especially celebrities and politicians. The best case at describing this is the tragic Princess Diana story. She was probably the person who would be mentioned in every edition of every paper anywhere. I don’t think I ever saw a paper without having a footnote on the Prince and Princess’s life. The couple was never seen without a group of reporters traveling close behind them. Many stories were published about Prince Charles’ affair and about how each had separate lovers, which did have some truth to it.
After all of these stories came to life things finally lead to the real truth being told, which was what the tabloids had actually printed in the first place, and to the divorce of probably one of the most famous couples in the world. The stories ends with the media hounds following the Princess and her new lover through a tunnel in Paris. At the other end of the tunnel after the driver had gained much speed they lost control of the car and crashed killing both passengers, one of which was Diana.
Not only had they caused the untimely deaths of two people, they stopped to photograph the corpses and to write their stories instead of trying to see if anyone had survived (tabloid. net). This is a severe case of media hounding and is a practice derived from Hearst’s example of how the run a company. If you ask me it is a way to not run a business. Why would you put people at risk to create a story? I guess its because of the greed factor, the world revolves around the green face of money.
If people were not so power and money hungry, they we would not have these disputes over who printed the story first or who’s story is better. Also being in the spotlight all the time can turn the papers against you as Hearst learned to trust no one, even if they are on your side. When running for Governor of New York his own staff reported on his past life and drudge up material that made him scorned in the public’s eye (Robinson 88). This is ever the more evident in today’s society were our own President is ridiculed for having extramarital activities while in the White House.
This goes to show you that if our own President is not safe from slander, then no one is. His character is now forever changed, no one will remember him for cutting the deficit. He will be know for “Zipper Gate”, and has been dubbed “Slick Willy” for getting away with such actions (tabloid. net). So just as in Hearst’s time, even today papers still abuse politicians. I believe that if Hearst had known that his life would be exposed to the public via a bibliography he would have tried to change the way he had lived his life.
I also think that he is sitting proud on the fact that his journalism techniques are still being used today to generate stories and to sell papers. If he had known his ideals would have influenced a whole industry, then he himself may have tried to take advantage of his own publicity. He set standards for owners to follow in achieving reporters, stories and the types of stories told. He was famous, his unaccredited bibliography, Citizen Kane, is famous, and now his techniques for doing business are famous. What more could a person who was just looking for respect and admiration want out of death?
