‘Citizen Kane’: greatest film of all time. It’s the biggest clich’eacute; in all of moviedom, but to use the old Henry Kissinger adage, it has the added value of being true. You thought you’d go your whole life without meeting someone who actually likes ‘Citizen Kane’-well, here I am!
‘ ‘ ‘ Don’t panic. I’m a movie person; I’ve seen Orson Welles’ 1941 magnum opus probably more than anyone should watch anything.’ I know it’s a great film and that’s good enough for me.
‘ ‘ ‘ Nevertheless, I do recommend that you add ‘Citizen Kane’ to your list of things to see before you die, somewhere between the Grand Canyon and the world’s largest ball of twine. The movie is very relevant to American life – in fact, its original working title was ‘The American’ – which might be why it has stood the test of time.
There are many ways to look at ‘Citizen Kane,’ depending on your viewpoint.’ Its fictitious hero, Charles Foster Kane, modeled after William Randolph Hearst, is a man of great ambition who is given the key to America, but ultimately drops it down a sewer pipe. He captains a major newspaper chain ,and then runs it into the ground.’ He runs for governor of New York with ambitions for the White House, but gets caught with a mistress on the eve of the election. He begins his career as a wide-eyed idealist with countless friends and admirers, but ends with the most loyal of them calling him a man who ‘never believed in anything but himself.’
‘ The intricately-woven plot revolves around a young reporter’s quest to find the meaning of Kane’s dying word, ‘rosebud,’ and the film ends on one of the most profound (or perhaps shallow) notes in all of cinema:’ The suggestion that a person’s life is so mysterious that it cannot be explained in words or even ideas.’ Among all movie protagonists, Charlie Kane most fully embodies the way Winston Churchill once described Russia: ‘a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.’
Although ‘Citizen Kane’ means different things to different people, today I offer this most fascinating of films simply as a roadmap to the ambitions of seeking high office in the United States.
If there was one fact the 2008 presidential campaign solidified beyond the shadow of a doubt, it’s that no reasonable, rational person would ever run for president in America.’ As New York Times columnist David Brooks frequently wrote during the year, even the most seemingly down-to-earth presidential candidate must have something wrong with him, because only a half-crazed sociopath would voluntarily undertake such an endless, mind numbing freak show that is the modern campaign.’ The people who want to be president are rarely the ones who ought to be president.
This year, every presidential candidate had a little Charlie Kane buried within him or her.’ The American presidency, by its imperial nature, is a job for which no single person is qualified.’ Bill Clinton was chided last summer for refusing to say whether Barack Obama was ready for the job, but then Obama himself once told a reporter, ‘The only real preparation for the presidency is the presidency.” This one-of-a-kind gig does not encourage high ambition so much as it requires it.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin exemplifies this phenomenon. On TV last week during her post-election ‘Y’all can shove it’ tour, she was not especially coy in responding to the call to run again in 2012, this time as the headliner.’ With such visible deficiencies in world knowledge, critical thinking and syntax, her candidacy was fueled-and would be again-by sheer willpower.
This year’s victor, Obama, is an endlessly more fascinating study, because his ambition is in plain view. As the appointment of New York Senator Hillary Clinton to the State Department would prove, he is serious about following the Abraham Lincoln model of governing – a ‘team of rivals,’ coined by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin – and that is a near-impossible task.’ Only a man with the highest regard for his own abilities would unflinchingly put himself in that position.
High ambition is not an inherently negative quality, as Lincoln demonstrated as well as anyone. Goodwin explained that when Lincoln was 10, his dying mother provided little hope for an afterlife, leaving Lincoln with the idea that doing great work is man’s only path for achieving immortality.
‘Kane’ audiences will notice parallels between Lincoln’s story and Kane’s-both men were shaped by trying childhood losses-and the only major difference, as Goodwin might argue, is that Lincoln maintained a miniscule ego while Kane’s ego only grew. We can only hope that our Citizen Obama will follow more in Lincoln’s footsteps than in Kane’s. This will be Obama’s challenge as president:’ Maintain ambition without sacrificing his humility.’ It’s a difficult hill to sled down.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
